Srom  f  ^e  feiBrari?  of 

(profeBBor  ^ifPiam  J^tnx^  (Bteen 

Q5equcaf^cb  fij?  ^im  to 
f 0e  feifirarg  of 

(Princeton  €6eofogtcaf  ^eminatj 


(l  '-^/(jlt^f^  ^  ^JLLM- 


/  m^ 


'     ^ 


CHRISTOLOGY 


OLD    TESTAMENT, 


COMMENTARY 


PREDICTIONS  OF  THE  MESSIAH  BY  THE  PROPHETS. 


E.  W.^HENGSTENBERG, 

Doctor  of  Phil,  and  Theol.  and  Professor  of  the  latter  in  the  University  of  Berlin. 


TRANSLATED    FROM     THE     GERMAN, 

BY  REUEL    KEITH,  D.  D. 

Professor  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Theological  Seminary  of  Virginia. 


VOL.  i: 


CONTAINING     THE     MESSIANIC     PROPHECIES     OF 
ZECHARIAH     AND     DANIEL. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.  : 
PUBLISHED    BY    WILLIAM    M.    MORRISON. 

1839. 


>:  "Ti^.v 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1839, 

By  Reuel   Keith, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Virginia. 


CAMBRIDGE: 
FOLSOM,     WELLS,     AND     THURSTON. 

PRINTEns   TO     THE    UNIVERSITY. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

On  Matthew  2  :  23, 1 

The  Prophet  Zechariah,  .....  7 

General  Preliminary  Observations,      ....  7 

I.  Chap.  1:1  —  6, 15 

II.  Chap.  1  :7-6  :  15,             16 

1.  The  Vision  of  the   Rider  among  the   Myrtle 

Trees.     Chap.  1  :  7-17,          .          .          .  16 

2.  The  Fom- Horns  and  the  Four  Smiths.   Chap. 

2:1-4,  .         .  .         .  .  .22 

3.  The  Angel  with  the  Measuring  Line.      Chap. 

2  :  5-17, 23 

4.  The  High  Priest  Joshua  before  the  Angel  of 

the  Lord.     Chap.  3,         ....  25 

5.  The  Candlestick  with  the  Two  Olive  Trees. 

Chap.  4,           ...  ^       ...  41 

6.  The  Flying  Roll.     Chap.  5:1-4,       .          .  44 

7.  The  Epha  and   the   Woman    sitting    therein. 

Verses  5-11,  .  .  .         .46 

8.  The  Four  Chariots.     Chap.  6:1-8,.         .  48 

9.  The  Crown  on  the  Head  of  Joshua.  Vs.  9-15,  52 

Chap.  7  and  8,         . 66 

Chap.  9:1-10,           .         .         .          .          .          .  68 

Concerning  the  Land  of  Hadrach,     ...  69 

Chap.  9:  11—  10  :  12,.                 ....  114 


jv  CONTENTS. 

Page 

Chap.  10,         .          .          V ^^^ 

Chap.  11, 146 

Chap.  12:  1—13  :  6, 196 

History  of  the  Interpretation,         .         .         .     '  218 

1.  Among  the  Jews,         ....  218 

2.  By  the  Christians,    ....  226 

Chap.  13, 233 

Chap.  13:7-9,          .   ' 242 

Chap.  14, 254 

The  Seventy  Weeks  of  Daniel,  Chap.  9:  24-27,  292 

General  View, 292 

Interpretation.     Verse  24,     .          .          .          . ,       .  297 

Verse  25, 328 

Verse  26, 343 

Verse  27, 354 

The  Definiteness  of  the  Dates,       ....  378 
The  Terminus  a  Quo  of  the  Seventy  Weeks,     .         .381 

Chronological  Determination  of  the  Terminus  ad  Qwem,  392 
The  Agreement  of  Prophecy  and   Fulfilment  with  re- 
spect to  the  Distance  of  the  Terminus  a  Quo  from 

the  Terminus  ad  Quern,        .         .          .         .          .  394 

The  Last  Week  and  its  Half,         ....  408 

The  Non-Messianic  Interpreters,         ....  414 


ON    MATTHEW    2:  23. 


TO   ^ri&iv  8iu   Tiov  ■n:gocpi]T(~})',  oit.  Nct^afjctlog  xXrj&^^asTUt. 


We  here  engage  in  a  preliminary  inquiry  respecting  the  name  of 
the  city  of  Nazareth.  As  we  find  it  only  in  the  New  Testament, 
different  views  might  be  entertained  in  respect  to  its  orthography 
and  etymology.  Ours  is  the  following  :  the  name  was  properly  and 
originally  "IV.A  ;  as  the  name  of  a  city  it  received  in  Aramaean  the 
feminine  ending  n  ;  and  lastly,  on  account  of  the  original  appel- 
lative signification  of  the  word,  a  n  was  sometimes  appended  to 
mark  the  stat.  empkat.  of  the  fern,  in  ><.  We  have  an  analogous 
case  in  the  name  Dalmanutha,  the  same  place  which  is  called 
p'n'?y  by  the  Talmudists  :  see  Lightfoot,  Decas  Chorograph.  Blare. 
prcBm.,  Opp.  II.  p.  411,  sqq.  Also  probably  in  ya^^Sa&u,  Nn^J,  formed 
from  the  masc.  2J,  dorsum.  That  the  original  form  was  Nezer, 
that  this  continued  in  use  along  with  that  also  in  n,  and  that  the 
n  served  merely  to  designate  the  stat.  empliat.  or,  if  the  Hebrew 
is  regarded  as  the  ground  form,  was  only  the  hardening  of  the  n 
femin.  which  equally  suits  our  purpose,  we  prove  by  the  following 
arguments.  1.  The  testimony  of  the  Jews.  David  de  Pomis  (in 
De  Dieu,  Critic.  Sacr.  on  M.  2 :  23.)  says,  n>"3  i^O  nSuty  ^n  n2f  J 
D'n"'  nw'lV!  Tj-n  D^Sb;itd  pirn  S"'S:n,  "  A  Nazarite  is  one  born  in  the 
city  Nezer,  in  Galilee,  three  days'  journey  from  Jerusalem."  In 
the  Talmud,  in  Breschit  Rabbah,  and  in  Jalkut  Schimeoni  on 
Daniel,  Christ  receives  the  reproachful  name,  Ben  Nezer,  the  Naza- 
rene  :  see  the  passages  in  Buxtorf,  Lex.  c.  1383,  in  Lightfoot,  Disquis. 
Chorog.  Johan.prmn.,  Opp.  11.  p.  578,  sq.,  Eisenmenger,  I.  p.  139. 

VOL.    II.  1 


2  -  MATTHEW  2  :  23. 

Gieseler  has  endeavoured,  it  is  true,  on  Matth.  2  :  23,  (in  den  Studieo 
und  Crit.  1831,  III.  p.  591,)  to  give  another  meaning  to  this  appei 
lation.  He  supposes  it  to  refer  to  Isaiah  11:1.  It  passed  over 
to  the  Jews  from  the  Christians,  who  called  their  Messiah  1^3  |3, 
because  he  was  the  one  promised  by  Isaiah.  But  this  supposition 
is  correct  only  so  far,  as  this  designation  was  indeed  chosen  by  the 
Jews  in  reference  to  the  assertion  of  the  Christians,  that  Christ  was 
the  "^i'J  predicted  by  Isaiah;  as  in  like  manner  they  gave  him  also 
the  names  "^13X3  lli'J,  adulterous  Branch,  and  3;,'nJ  "^i'J,  ahominahle  or 
detestable  Branch,  (from  Isaiah  14 :  19.)  comp.  Eisenmenger,  I.  pp, 
137,  138.  But  it  is  erroneous  to  attribute  the  origin  of  this  appel- 
lation entirely,  or  even  chiefly,  to  this  reference  to  Isaiah  11:  1. 
Against  this  the  name  itself  is  decisive.  It  would  then  have  been 
not  Ben  Nezer,  but  only  "li'J.  Gieseler  asserts,  indeed,  that  he  in 
whom  a  particular  prophecy  was  fulfilled,  was  "  the  son  of  this 
prophecy,"  and  in  proof  of  this  usage  he  appeals  to  the  fact,  that 
the  Pseudo-Messias  under  Adrian,  with  reference  to  the  '22)2,  Num. 
24  :  17,  called  himself  22)2  \2  or  X3213  13,  because  the  star  there 
promised  had  appeared  in  him.  But  this  is  only  plausible  ;  we  can 
just  as  little  prove  from  it,  that  Christ,  as  he  in  whom  the  prophecy 
concerning  the  Nezer  was  fulfilled,  could  be  called  Ben  Nezer,  as 
on  the  other  hand  we  can  prove  from  the  appellation  Ben  Nezer, 
that  the  said  Pseudo-Messias  could  be  named  Barkochba  solely 
because  the  prophecy  concerning  the  star  was  believed  to  be  fulfilled 
in  him.  Reland  has  already  shown  (Geogr.  II.  p.  727,)  that  Bar- 
kochba probaby  bore  this  name,  as  originating  from  Kokab,  a  city 
and  region  beyond  the  Jordan.  He  made  his  descent  of  such 
special  importance,  because  he  sought  for  a  deeper  meaning  in  the 
coincidence  of  the  name  of  his  birth-place  with  that  of  the  subject 
of  the  prediction  Num.  24.  The  assumption,  however,  that,  among 
the  Jews,  he  in  whom  a  prophecy  was  fulfilled  was  called  its  son, 
6.  g.  the  Messiah,  the  servant  of  God,  the  Prince  of  Peace,  the  Son 
of  the  Messiah,  &c.,  is  entirely  without  support,  and  improbable  in 
itself.  Besides,  this  import  of  the  term  Ben  Nezer  has  the  uniform 
interpretation  of  the  Jews  against  it.  Jarchi,  in  the  gloss  on  the 
passage  relating  to  this  name  in  the  Talmud,  explains  Ben  Nezer 
by  "  he  who  has  sprung  from  the  city  of  Nazareth."  Abarbanel, 
in  his  book  Majcnc  Hajeschua,  after  the  citation  of  a  passage  from 
Jalkut  Schimeoni,  says;  "  Yet  mark  well  how  they  have  interpreted 
the  little  horn  (Dan.  7  :  8)  of  the  Ben  Nezer,  which  is  Jesus  the  Naza- 


MATTHEW  2  :  23.  3 

rene."  Buxtorf  also  cites  from  the  Lexicon  Aruch,  which  is  of  high 
authority  :  Sbpnn  n^J  '^^:i2,  "  Nezcr  (or  Ben  Nezer)  is  the  accursed 
Nazarene."  Lastly,  it  is  inconceivable,  that  the  Jews,  in  a  connex- 
ion where  they  heap  the  basest  calumnies  upon  Christ,  should,  with- 
out any  explanation,  give  him  an  honorable  appellation  borrowed 
from  the  Christians.  2.  This  result  is  confirmed  by  the  assertions 
of  Christian  writers.  In  the  time  of  Eusebius  {Hist.  Eccl.  1,  7)  and 
of  Jerome,  the  place  still  bore  the  name  of  Nazara.  The  latter 
says,  under  the  word  Nazareth :  "  Est  autem  usque  hociie  in  Gali- 
Itsa  viculus  contra  Legionem,  in  quitito  decimo  ejus  milliario  dd 
orientalem  plogam,  juxta  montrm  Tabor,  nomine  Nazara."  (Comp. 
Reland,  L  p.  497.)  Li  the  epistle  17,  ad  Marcellum,  he  identifies 
the  name  expressly  with  Nezer :  "  Ibimiis  ad  Nazareth,  et  juxta 
interpretationem  nominis  ejus  videbemus  Jiorem  Galilcea;."  3.  To 
these  considerations  we  add  that  the  gentiUtia  formed  from  Naza- 
reth can  be  explained  only  when  the  n  is  regarded  as  not  belonging 
to  the  ground  form  of  the  name.  For  in  that  case  it  must  of  neces- 
sity be  found  in  the  gentiUtia ;  thus  e.  g.  from  anathoth  ^r^^V  could 
in  no  way  be  formed,  but  only  ''nr\^;\  In  the  New  Testament  we 
find  only  the  two  forms  JSfa'QoiQcuoq  and  Na'Cag7]v6g,  never  Na^agnuicg. 
Gieseler  has  felt  the  difficulty  which  these  names  present  on  the 
common  hypothesis,  but  has  sought  to  remove  it  (1.  c.  p.  592)  by 
the  supposition,  that  the  form  received  its  peculiar  stamp  from 
regard  to  '^'H^,  which  the  early  Christians  were  accustomed  to  con- 
nect with  ni:^J-  But  this  supposition  would,  at  most,  be  admissible 
only  in  case  the  form  ''1VJ,  also  without  n,  were  not  the  exclusive 
one  among  the  Jews,  and  the  Arabic  form  also  were  not  entirely 
analogous. 

We  may  now  inquire  in  what  sense  i^  was  given  to  a  place 
in  Galilee  as  a  proper  name.  Here  the  supposition  of  Jerome  is 
undoubtedly  to  be  rejected,  viz.  that  Nazareth  was  so  called  as 
being  the  Jlower  of  Galilee  ;  partly  because  IVJ  never  occurs  in  this 
sense  ;  and  partly  because  it  is  improbable,  that  the  place  should 
receive  a  name  which  could  be  appropriate  to  it  only  y.uT  uvzlcpQaaiv. 
It  is  far  more  probable  that  it  was  thus  called  on  account  of  its  being 
so  small  a  place,  —  a  feeble  twig  in  contrast  with  a  stately  tree. 
In  this  sense  the  word  IVJ  occurs,  Isaiah  11  :  1,  14 :  19  ;  and  also 
in  the  Talmudic  idiom,  where  D'li'J  denotes  virgulta  salicum  decor- 
ticata,  vimina  ex  guibus  corbes  jiunt.  Indeed  there  was  the  more 
occasion  to  give  to  the  place  this  name,  as  the  symbol  was  seen  in 


4  MATTHEW  2  :  23. 

the  surrounding  region  ;  the  chalky  hills  around  Nazareth  are 
covered  with  low  shrubs  and  bushes,  (comp.  Burckhardt's  Reisen,  II. 
p.  583.)  What  these  were  in  comparison  with  the  stately  trees 
which  adorned  other  places,  such  was  Nazareth  in  comparison  with 
large  cities. 

This  name  attributed  to  the  place  on  account  of  its  small  begin- 
ning, like  the  name  Zoar,  little  city,  was  at  the  same  time  an  o?nen 
of  its  future  character.  The  feeble  twig  never  grew  to  be  a  tree.  In 
the  Old  Testament  Nazareth  is  never  mentioned,  perhaps  because  it 
may  have  been  first  fouiided  after  the  exile.  It  is  unnoticed  by 
Josephus.  It  was  not,  like  most  other  cities' in  Palestine,  ennobled 
by  recollections  of  ancient  time.  Indeed  there  rested  on  it  a  special 
disgrace  besides  that  which  was  common  to  the  whole  of  Galilee  ; 
as  almost  every  land  has  its  place  or  city  to  which  some  peculiar 
reproach  attaches,  often  from  accidental  circumstances.  This  is 
clear,  not  only  from  the  question  of  Nathanael,  John  1  :  47,  "  Can 
any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth  ? "  but  also  from  the  fact, 
that,  from  the  earliest  times,  the  Jews  have  supposed  they  were 
casting  the  greatest  disgrace  upon  Christ,  when  they  called  him  "  the 
Nazarene  "  ;  while  the  reproach  resting  on  all  Galilee  was  at  a  later 
period  removed  by  the  circumstance,  that  the  most  celebrated  of  the 
Jewish  academics,  that  of  Tiberias,  was  situated  in  it. 

Let  us  now  inquire  how  far  the  residence  of  Christ  at  Nazareth 
fulfilled  the  Old  Testament  prophecies.  The  prophets  everywhere 
declare,  that  the  Messiah,  springing  from  the  fallen  and  decayed 
family  of  David,  should  appear  at  first  without  external  rank  or  dig- 
nity. The  foundation  for  all  other  similar  passages  is  found  in 
Isaiah  11  :  1.  "  There  shall  come  forth  a  rod  out  of  the  fallen  stem 
of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  from  his  roots  shall  bear  fruit;  "  which  Q,uen- 
stedt  has  well  illustrated  in  the  Dissertatio  de  Germine  JehovcB  in  the 
Thes.  Theol.  Philol.  I.  p.  1015,  "  Ubijam  stemma  Isai  ex  humilioribus 
initiis  in  Davide  ad  decus  regies  majestatis  evectum  non  tantum 
axiomate  regio  et  omni  externa  splendorc,  quern  in  Davide  acccpit,  erit 
orbatum,  sed  etiam  ad  privatum  conditionetn,  in  qua  erat  ante  Davi- 
dem,  denuo  redactum,  ita  ut  trunci  omni  ramorum  ac  frondium  appa- 
ratu  denudati  instar  se  habeat,  nee  qtiicquam  supersit  prcetcr  radices, 
nihilominus  tamen  ex  illo  trunco  adeo  acciso,  et,  uti  vidcbatur,  ptsne 
arido  procedet  virga  rcgia,  et  ex  illis  radicibus  efflorescet  surculu-s, 
super  quern  requiescct  spiritus  domini,'^  etc.  (Comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  374.) 
The  passage  in  Isaiah  53  :  2,  entirely  agrees  with  this ;  "  He  grew 


MATTHEW  2.:  23.  5 

up  before  the  Lord  as^»a  sprout,  as  a  shoot  out  of  a  dry  soil."  To 
the  1XA,  in  ch.  11,  the  pAV  here  corresponds,  to  the  *iwn  the  ^"l^p, 
to  the  trunk  hewn  down,  the  dry  soil ;  except  that  by  this  last,  the 
lowliness  of  the  servant  of  God  is  designated  generally,  while  his 
descent  from  the  now  decayed  and  fallen  family  of  David  is  not 
made  specially  prominent,  though  of  course  it  is  necessarily  included 
in  the  general  idea.  The  same  idea  is  carried  out  further  in  Ez. 
17:  22-24.  Here,  as  descended  from  the  fallen  family  of  David, 
the  Messiah  appears  as  a  small  and  tender  twig,  which,  plucked 
by  the  Lord  from  the  top  of  a  lofty  cedar,  and  planted  on  a  high 
mountain,  grows  up  into  a  stately  tree  under  which  all  fowls  shall 
dwell.  In  Jeremiah  and  Zechariah,  in  allusion  to  the  figure  em- 
ployed by  Isaiah  of  a  trunk  hewn  down,  the  Messiah  is  called  the 
Branch  of  David,  or  simply  the  Branch.  (Comp.  on  Zech.  3  :  8,  6  : 
12.)  It  is  surely  only  necessary  here  to  compare  prophecy  and  history 
to  render  obvious  the  exact  accomplishment  of  the  one  by  the  other. 
Not  at  Jerusalem,  where  was  the  seat  of  his  royal  ancestors  and  the 
throne  of  his  house,  (comp.  Ps.  122,)  did  the  Messiah  fix  his  abode; 
but  in  the  most  despised  city  of  the  most  despised  province  did  the 
providence  of  God  assign  his  dwelling,  after  the  prophecies  had 
been  fulfilled  by  his  birth  at  Bethlehem.  The  name  of  this  despised 
city,  which  implied  its  lowliness,  was  the  same  by  which  Isaiah  had 
signified  the  original  lowliness  of  the  Messiah  himself. 

We  have  hitherto  considered  the  prophecies  and  their  accom- 
plishment independently  of  their  citation  in  Matthew.  We  now 
add  a  few  remarks  upon  the  latter. 

1.  The  more  general  form  of  quotation,  to  ^t^&iv  diu  tmv  ngocfi]- 
Twv,  in  the  plural,  seems  not  to  have  been  employed  here  without 
ground ;  although  Jerome  infers  too  much  from  it,  when  he  says  : 
"  Si  Jixum  de  scripturis  posuisset  excinplum,  nunquam  diceret,  quod 
dictum  est  per  prophetas,  sed  simpUciter,  quod  dictum  est  per  prophe- 
tam  ;  nunc  aiitem  pluralitei'  prophetas  vocando  ostendit  se  non  verba 
de  scripturis  sumsisse,  sed  sensum."  It  is  true,  that  Matthew  par- 
ticularly referred  to  Isaiah  11:  1,  which  not  only  announces  gen- 
erally the  lowliness  of  the  Messiah,  but  also  especially  designates  it 
in  the  nomen  et  omen  of  the  place  where  he  dwelt.  This  is  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  tne  quotation  on,  Na^wQalog  aXrj&iJafTai  could  not 
otherwise  be  explained  ;  since  it  would  be  in  the  highest  degree  forced 
to  assume,  that  the  term  "  Nazarene"  here  signifies  an  humble, 
despised  person  in  general.     But  he  chose  the  more  general  form  of 


6  MATTHEW  2  :  23. 

citation,  (comp.  Gersdorf,  Beitr.  zur  Sprachcharakteristik,  I.  p.  136,) 
in  order  to  denote  at  the  same  time  the  collateral  accomplishment 
of  those  prophecies  which  agree  with  that  of  Isaiah  in  the  chief 
point,  viz.  the  announcement  of  Christ's  low  condition, — in  his  resi- 
dence at  Nazareth.  But  such  a  reference  shows  that  this  was  really 
the  chief  thing  in  the  mind  of  Matthew ;  and  that  the  coincidence 
of  the  name  of  the  city  with  that  which  Christ  bore  in  Isaiah,  ap- 
pears to  him  only  as  a  remarkable  external  illustration  of  the  exact 
connexion  of  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment;  just,  indeed,  as  he  con- 
siders every  thing  in  the  life  of  Christ,  especially  directed  by  the 
providence  of  God. 

2.  The  phrase  ort  ylri^r^anuj,  is  then  likewise  to  be  explained  by 
the  fact  that  Matthew  does  not  limit  himself  to  the  single  passage  in 
Isaiah  11 :  1,  but  refers  also  to  the  other  passages  of  a  similar  char- 
acter. The  expression  itself,  ort  xhj&^aEjai,  is  derived  from  one 
of  these,  viz.  Zech.  6 :  12.  "  Behold  the  man  whose  name  is 
the  Branch."  It  is,  therefore,  not  necessary  to  explain  it  merely 
from  the  custom  of  the  later  Jews,*  who  attribute  to  the  Mes- 
siah as  a  name  that  which  serves  in  the  Old  Testament  to  mark 
some  quality  or  feature  of  his  character,  —  following  in  this  the 
custom  of  the  prophets  themselves,  who  often  thus  employ  some 
quality  of  the  Messiah  in  the  place  of  a  proper  name.  This  hy- 
pothesis is  untenable,  because  it  would  be  difficult  to  produce  an- 
other instance,  where  the  evangelists,  in  a  literal  quotation,  have 
intermingled  any  thing  de  propriis,  relating  to  proper  names. 

•  As  an  illustration  of  this  custom  the  following  passage  is  highly  ap- 
propriate, which  we  cite  from  Raim.  Martini  Pug.  Fid.  III.  3,  19,  p.  685. 
"  Dixit  R.  Mha  nm''  dominus  est  nomen  ejus,  sicut  dictum  est  Jerem.  23  :  6. 
R.  Josua  ben  Levi  dixit,  germen  est  nomen  ejus,  sicut  dictum  est  Zach.  6  :  12. 
Sunt,  qui  dicunt,  consolator,  filius  fortitudinis  dei  nomen  ejus,  sicut  dictiim  est 
Thren.  1 :  16.  Ex  domo  R.  Siloh  dixerunt,  Siloh  est  nomen  ejus,  sicut  d.  est 
Gen.  49 :  10,  donee  veniat  Siloh.  Ex  domo  R.  Chanina  dixerunt,  gratiosus  est 
nomen  ejus,  sicut  d.  Jerem.  16 :  13.  De  domo  R.  Jannai  dixerunt,  Jinnon  est 
nomen  ejus,  Ps.  72 :  17,"  etc. 


THE    PROPHET    ZECHARIAH, 


GENERAL     PRELIMINARY      OBSERVATIONS. 

Zechariah,  like  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  was  of  priestly  descent. 
Chap.  1:1,  Berechiah  is  named  as  his  father,  and  Iddo  as  his 
grandfather.  The  latter,  among  the  exiles  who  returned  with  Joshua 
and  Zerubbabel,  filled  the  respectable  office  of  overseer  of  a  class 
of  priests;  comp.  Neh.  12:  4.  That  Berechiah  died  early  appears 
from  the  fact,  that  v.  16.  the  same  Zechariah  is  mentioned  as  imme- 
diate successor  of  Iddo  in  this  office,  under  Joiachim,  successor  of 
Joshua.  Accordingly  Zechariah,  at  least  in  his  later  years,  exer- 
cised, together  with  the  prophetic,  a  priestly  office  also.  This  early 
death  and  the  comparative  obscurity  of  the  father  explain  why,  Ezr. 
5  :  1,  the  descent  of  this  prophet  is  referred  immediately  to  the 
grandfather,  according  to  a  practice  occurring  elsewhere  in  similar 
cases.     (See  Beitr.  1,  p.  47.) 

The  discourse,  which  opens  the  collection  of  the  prophecies  of 
Zechariah,  was  held,  according  to  chap.  1:1,  in  the  eighth  month  of 
the  second  year  of  Darius,  beyond  all  doubt  Darius  the  son  of  Hystas- 
pes.  See  the  almost  unnecessary  refutation  of  the  strange  assumption 
of  Scaliger,  that  the  prophet  came  forward  under  Darius  Nothus,  in 
Vorstius,  De  Tempore  Instaurati  Templi  Hierosolymitani,  and  Vitrin- 
ga,  Prolegg.  p.  15,  sqq.  We  may  well  be  convinced,  that  this  was  also 
the  commencement  of  his  course  as  a  prophet.  This  appears,  partly 
from  the  character  of  the  discourse,  which  in  its  general  tenor  is 
clearly  a  preparatory  introduction,  and  partly  from  the  chronological 
arrangement  of  the  collection,  apparent  from  the  superscriptions  of 
the  second  and  third  prophecy,  chap.  1  :  7,  and  chap.  7:1,  which 
prove  that  the  predictions,  chap.  9-14,  which  are  without  date, 
belong  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the  foregoing. 

The  prophet  must  have  been  still  young  when  he  first  came  for- 
ward.    For  his  grandfather  Iddo  was  then  in  the  full  discharge  of 


S  ZECHARIAH. 

the  duties  of  his  office,  as  appears  from  the  fact  already  mentioned, 
that  Zechariah  was  his  immediate  successor.  In  addition  to  this, 
the  prophet,  chap.  2 :  S,  is  expressly  called  a  young  man.  As  now 
according  to  Nehem.  12  :  4,  comp.  with  v.  1,  the  family  of  the  prophet 
returned  to  Judea  with  the  first  expedition  of  the  exiles  in  the  first 
year  of  Cyrus,  which  was  eighteen  years  previous  to  the  second  year 
of  Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspes,  Zechariah  can  have  passed  only  the 
first  years  of  his  childhood  in  Babylonia,  and  consequently  the  Baby- 
lonish coloring  of  his  prophecies  was  owing,  not  as  Bertholdt  and  De 
Wette  suppose,  to  his  having  received  his  education  in  Babylonia, 
but  rather,  in  some  degree,  to  the  continuation  of  the  Babylonish 
influence  on  the  body  of  the  exiles,  though  chiefly  to  the  depen- 
dence which  he  everywhere  manifests  on  earlier  prophets,  especially 
Ezekiel,  who  stood  in  immediate  contact  with  the  Babylonians. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  historical  relations,  under  which  the 
prophet  came  forward,  and  upon  which  he  was  called  to  operate. 
The  advantages,  which  had  been  granted  to  the  exiles  by  the  com- 
mand of  Cyrus  in  respect  to  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  were  soon 
wrested  from  them  through  the  machinations  of  their  enemies,  the 
Samaritans,  in  the  Persian  court.  They  were  deficient  in  means  to 
carry  forward  the  erection  of  the  temple,  and  still  more  in  theocratic 
zeal  ;  this  had  been  already  greatly  damped,  soon  after  the  return, 
by  the  obstacles  which  unexpectedly  occurred,  while  they  believed 
themselves  justified  by  the  former  promises  in  expecting  nothing  but 
prosperity  and  happiness.  Each  one  was  selfishly  intent  only  on 
the  improvement  of  his  own  affairs.  Under  these  circumstances, 
and  in  this  tone  of  the  public  mind,  the  repeal  of  the  prohibition 
to  build  the  temple,  in  consequence  of  the  accession  of  Darius  the  son 
of  Hystaspes  to  the  throne,  which  had  been  promulgated  under  his 
predecessor,  the  usurper  Smerdis,  contributed  but  little  to  advance 
the  work.  It  was  necessary  still,  that  a  powerful  influence  should 
be  exerted  on  the  minds  of  the  people.  For  this  purpose  were  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah  called  of  God  ;  of  whom  the  former, 
at  whose  exhortation  the  building  of  the  temple  was  immediately 
recommenced,  came  forward  two  months  earlier  than  the  latter. 
Zechariah,  as  becomes  a  true  prophet  of  God,  has  in  view,  through- 
out, not  the  advancement  of  the  outward  work,  as  such;  he  aims  to 
produce  among  the  people  a  thorough  spiritual  revolution,  the  fruit 
of  which  must  be  an  increased  zeal  for  the  building  of  the  temple. 
Those,  on  whom  the  prophet  was  called  to  operate,  belonged  to  two 


PRELIMINARY    OBSERVATIONS.  9 

classes.  First,  the  upright, and  true  believers.  These  had  fallen  into 
great  despondency  and  strong  temptations,  in  consequence  of  the 
apparent  contradiction  between  the  divine  promises  and  the  actual 
appearance  of  things.  They  doubted  both  the  power  and  the  will  of 
God  to  help  them.  It  would  often  appear  to  them,  that  their  own  sins 
and  those  of  their  fathers  were  so  great,  that  God  could  not  again 
show  them  mercy.  Here,  where  the  prophet  had  to  deal  with 
troubled  consciences,  his  office  was  to  console.  This  he  does,  while 
he  points  from  the  gloomy  present  to  the  brighter  future  ;  and,  while 
resuming  the  yet  unfulfilled  portion  of  the  former  prophecies,  he 
represents  the  fulfilment  as  yet  to  be  accomplished.  The  objects 
of  his  prediction  are  particularly  the  happy  completion  of  the  tem- 
ple ;  the  increase  of  the  new  colony  by  the  return  of  the  exiles 
remaining  in  Babylon  ;  the  preservation  of  Judea  during  the  victories 
of  Alexander,  so  destructive  to  the  neighbouring  nations  ;  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  people,  to  be  won  by  the  triumphs  of  the  Maccabees  ; 
the  blessings,  which  the  believing  part  of  them  should  receive 
through  the  Messiah,  immediately  on  his  first  appearance ;  the  final 
■restoration  of  the  ungodly  part,  once  rejected  on  account  of  their 
disbelief  in  the  Messiah  ;  the  protection  and  prosperity,  which  God 
will  grant  to  Israel,  when  they  shall  have  again  become  the  centre 
and  most  important  part  gf  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  aspect  of  the 
prediction  of  the  prophet  was  the  more  weighty,  the  stronger  were 
the  assaults  which  threatened  the  faith  of  even  the  upright,  in  that 
future  period  when  there  would  be  no  immediate  ambassadors  of  God, 
and  the  more  they  needed  a  sure  prophetic  word  to  illuminate  the 
darkness  of  their  faith.  The  second  class  consisted  of  the  hypo- 
crites. These  had  returned  in  no  less  numbers  from  Babylonia, 
induced,  not  by  the  true  motive,  the  iove  of  God  and  his  sanctuary,* 
but  by  selfishness,  the  hope  of  sharing  in  all  the  blessings  of  God 
promised  to  those  who  returned,  which  they  expected  immediately, 
and  in  which,  in  their  foolish  delusion,  notwithstanding  the  most 
emphatic  declarations  of  the  older  prophets,  they  believed  they  had 
a  right  to  participate,  because  they  renounced  gross  idolatry,  and 
exchanged  it  for  that  more  refined,  which  consisted  in  the  outward 
righteousness  of  works.  It  could  not  but  happen  that  even  then,  in 
many  instances,  the  disappointed  hope  would  strip  from  unbelief 
the  mask  of  hypocrisy.  Still  more  frequently,  however,  must  this 
be  the  case  at  a  later  period.  For  these,  also,  the  prophet  describes 
the  future  blessings  of  God,  in  order  to  excite  them  to  true  conver- 

VOL.    II.  2 


10  ZECHARIAH. 

sioii.  But  at  the  same  time  that  he  most  emphatically  declares,  that 
this  conversion  alone  can  give  them  a  part  in  these  blessings,  he  re- 
minds them  of  the  judgments,  which  had  fallen  upon  those  who  de- 
rided the  warnings  of  the  former  prophets,  he  threatens  them  with 
new  and  equally  fearful  punishments,  a  new  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  a  new  dispersion  of  the  people,  after  they  shall  have  des- 
pised the  last  and  greatest  manifestation  of  divine  mercy,  the  send- 
ing of  the  Messiah, 

With  respect  to  the  arrangement  of  the  prophecies,  the  collection 
consists  of  foiir  parts,  distinguished  by  the  time  of  composition  ;  of 
which  the  second  and  the  fourth,  through  the  difference  of  object 
and  the  new  application  given  to  the  discourse,  fall  again  into  dif- 
ferent subdivisions,  yet  connected  together,  not  only  by  being  com- 
posed at  the  same  time,  but  also  by  the  similarity  of  the  mode  of 
representation  and  by  their  relations.  1.  The  inaugural  discourse 
of  the  prophet,  chap.  1 :  1-7,  held  in  the  eighth  month  of  the  second 
year  of  Darius ;  on  what  day  is  uncertain.  2.  The  emblematic 
portion  of  the  collection,  chap.  1  :  7  —  6,  consisting  of  a^  series  of 
visions,  partly,  as  chap.  1  -4,  of  a  consoling  and  encouraging,  partly, 
as  chap.  5,  of  a  threatening  character,  all  imparted  to  the  prophet 
in  one  night,  the  24th  of  the  eleventh  month  in  the  second  year  of 
Darius.  3.  A  discourse,  at  the  same  time  didactic  and  prophetic, 
chap.  7,  8,  held  in  the  fourth  year  of  Darius,  occasioned  by  the 
earnest  inquiry  of  the  people,  whether  they  should  still  observe  the 
day  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  mourn- 
ing, or  whether  so  favorable  a  turn  of  their  fortune  was  now  soon 
to  be  expected,  that  the  former  adversity  would  thereby  be  forgotten. 
4.  A  prophetic  picture  of  the  future  destiny  of  the  covenant  people, 
essentially  like  the  second  discourse,  so  that  no  chief  point  of  that 
is  wanting  in  this,  but  differing  from  it,  partly  in  the  method  of  the 
representation,  —  here  the  ordinary  prophetic  discourse,  there  a 
series  of  visions,  —  partly  in  the  omission  here  of  the  distinct  refer- 
ence to  the  building  of  the  temple,  both  in  the  exhortation  and  the 
prophecy.  From  this,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  position  of  the 
prophecy,  at  the  end  of  the  collection,  we  are  authorized  to  conclude, 
that  it  was  composed  after  the  completion  of  the  temple,  therefore 
in  every  event  after  the  sixth  year  of  Darius,  Hence  it  may  be 
explained  why  the  prophecy  is  without  date.  This  was  of  impor- 
tance in  the  three  preceding  discourses.  In  the  first,  because 
thereby  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  agency  of  the  prophet  was  deter- 


PRELIMINARY   OBSERVATIONS.  H 

mined,  vvhich-is  noted,  even  by  prophets  who  were  accustomed  else- 
where to  subjoin  no  mark  of  time,  comp.  e.  g.  Isaiah,  chap,  6.  In 
the  second,  because  it  contained  the  promise,  without  doubt  a  few 
years  afterwards  fulfilled,  of  the  happy  completion  of  the  temple  by 
Zerubbabel.  In  the  third,  because  the  inquiry  of  the  people  was 
occasioned  by  definite  circumstances  existing  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Darius.  In  the  fourth  discourse,  on  the  contrary,  which,  as  what 
was  predicted  in  the  second,  as  the  nearest  future,  had  already  be- 
come the  past,  related  only  to  events  of  the  more  distant  future,  it 
was  entirely  sufficient  to  know  only  in  general  the  age  of  the 
prophet,  which  was  already  shown  by  the  former  notes  of  time. 

Among  the  Jewish  interpreters  especially  we  find  the  loudest 
complaints  of  the  obscurity  of  the  prophet.  Thus  Abarbanel  on 
Dan.  chap.  11,  remarks,  "  Vaticinia  ZacharicB  usque  adco  sunt 
abscondita,  ut  omnes  .interpretes,  quantumvis  periti,  manus  sicas  in 
explicationibus  suis  non  invenerint,'^  (Ps.  76  :  6.)  And  Jarchi, 
"  Prophetia  ZacharicB  valde  absfrusa  est ;  sunt  cnim  in  ilia  visiones 
somniis  similes,  in  quibus  opus  est  interpretatione.  Et  nos  non 
poterimus  assequi  veram  ejus  inferpretationem,  donee  venerit  doctor 
justiti(B,"  (the  Messiah,  from  Joel  2 :  23.)  But  the  ground  of  this 
assertion,  as  the  last  words  of  Jarchi  plainly  disclose,  was  one 
which  existed  chiefly  in  themselves.  The  more  the  reference  to 
Christ  prevails  in  Zechariah,  the  more  impenetrable  must  his  ob- 
scurity be  to  those  who  deprive  themselves  of  the  light  of  the  fulfil- 
ment, and,  having  formed  their  notion  of  a  Messiah  according  to 
the  desires  of  their  own  hearts,  necessarily  misunderstand  and  per- 
vert what  here  occurs,,  in  contradiction  to  their  preconceived  opin- 
ions, respecting  the  true  Messiah,  his  humble  condition  and  his 
death,  his  rejection  by  the  greater  portion  of  the  covenant  people, 
and  the  judgments  inflicted  upon  them  in  consequence.  The  later 
rationalist  interpreters  find  this  ground  of  obscurity  so  far  in  com- 
mon with  the  Jews,  as  that  they  also  must  anxiously  strive  to  avoid 
perceiving  too  exact  an  agreement  between  the  prophecy  and  the 
fulfilment,  or  any  thing,  which,  like  the  humble  Messiah,  rejected 
by  the  covenant  people,  and  suffering  death,  cannot  be  explained 
by  attributing  it  to  human  foresight.  In  addition  to  this,  their 
view  of  the  prophetic  order  is  any  thing  but  suited  to  make  them 
disposed  to  overcome  the  difficulties  that  really  exist,  by  imploring 
the  divine  aid,  and  by  using  the  utmost  diligence.  How  entirely 
must  the  efforts,  and  consequently  the  results  also,  of  a  De  VVette, 


12  ZECHARIAH. 

who  pronounces  beforehand,  that  the  last  part  contains  enthusiastic 
predictions,  which  mock  all  historical  interpretation,  differ  from 
those  of  a  Vitringa,  who  says  (Proll.  p.  60)  :  "  Nee  tamen  ohscuritas 
studiosum  veri  ahsterret  ah  investigatione  genuini  sensus  propheticc, 
dum  eerto  constat,  subesse  ei  sensum  reeonditum  rerum  proistantissi- 
marum,  quas  quilibet  non  ineuriosus  veri  scire  velit,  si  liceat.'^  It 
is,  moreover,  not  to  be  lost  sight  of,  that  though  Zechariah,  on  ac- 
count of  the  prevalence  of  symbolical  and  figurative  language,  as  well 
as  the  roughness  and  abruptness  of  his  style,  is,  in  a  degree,  more 
obscure  than  the  other  prophets,  yet  the  interpretation  of  him  is  facil- 
itated by  two  circumstances,  almost  peculiar  to  himself.  In  the  first 
place,  a  careful  comparison  of  the  parallel  passages  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  this  prophet,  who  leaned  upon  his  predecessors,  gives  more 
decisive  results,  than  in  that  of  any  other.  Then,  as  he  lived  after  the 
exile,  he  does  not  embrace  in  his  prophecy  nearly  so  large  a  circle 
of  events,  as  those  who  flourished  at  an  earlier  period.  The  dare 
obscure,  which  e.  g.  in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  and  in  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel,  arose  from  the  circumstance,  that  the  whole  series  of 
future  blessings,  namely,  the  deliverance  from  captivity,  and  the 
Messianic  time,  were  presented  to  them  in  one  vision,  here,  where 
the  prophet  takes  his  position  between  the  two  events,  in  a  great 
measure  disappears. 

It  now  only  remains  to  mention  some  of  the  most  important 
aids  in  the  interpretation.  With  respect  to  Jerome,  Theodoret, 
Grotius,  and  Calvin,  we  refer  the  reader  to  Vol.  I.  p.  283,  The 
commentary  of  Calvin  on  the  lesser  prophets  is  far  more  care- 
fully labored,  than  that  on  Isaiah.  What  especially  distinguishes 
it,  is  the  life  and  reality  with  which  it  exhibits  the  relation  of 
the  prophet  to  those  for  whom  his  predictions  were  in  the  first 
instance  designed.  In  the  developement  of  the  hortatory  portion  he 
is  here  also  far  happier,  than  in  that  of  the  strictly  prophetic  ;  his 
aversion  to  ail  forced  interpretation,  which  arose  from  his  love  of 
truth  in  exegesis,  rendered  him  so  distrustful  of  the  earlier  inter- 
preters, who  were  often  guilty  of  this  fault  in  order  to  make  out  a 
reference  to  Christ,  that,  much  more  frequently  than  in  Isaiah,  and 
in  about  the  same  way  as  in  his  commentary  on  the  Psalms,  he 
deviates  from  them  even  where  their  interpretation  rests  upon  the 
surest  ground,  and  he  everywhere  endeavours  to  give  to  special 
prophecies  a  general  meaning.  In  the  interpretation  of  Zechariah, 
the  defective  nature  of  his  helps,  and  of  his  knowledge  of  languages, 


PRELIMINARY  OBSERVATIONS.  13 

which  were  insufficient  for  the  removal  of  the  philological  difficul- 
ties, which  are  by  no  means  small,  stood  in  his  way  ;  as  did  also 
the  prevailing  symbolical  and  figurative  character  of  the  prophet, 
which  was  little  suited  to  the  peculiarity  of  his  mind.  But,  notwith- 
standing all  these  disadvantages,  his  commentary,  the  work  of  a 
Calvin,  yields  a  rich  profit ;  and  the  more  so,  since  it  has  been  either 
entirely  neglected,  or  only  very  superficially  and  partially  compared 
by  the  later  interpreters,  even,  which  is  very  surprising,  by  those  of 
the  reformed  church. 

Among  the  Fathers,  Cyril  of  Alexandria  yet  deserves  to  be  men- 
tioned. His  commentary  on  the  minor  prophets,  was  printed  first 
at  Ingolstadt,  1607,  fol.,  then  in  the  t.IlL,  Opp.  cd.  Auherti.  Among 
a  crowd  of  allegorical  interpretations  of  the  Septuagint  are  found 
many  fine  remarks. 

Of  the  Lutheran  church  after  Luther  (Werke,  Walch  Bd.  6,  p, 
3292  fr.),and  Melancthon  (Vorlesungen  iiber  den  Sacharjah,  Opp.  t. 
11.  p.  531  sq.),  whose  works,  it  must  be  confessed,  afford  in  the  main, 
little  satisfaction,  especially  those  of  the  latter,  consisting  of  few 
pages,  and  designed  only  to  exhibit  some  loci  communes  out  of  the 
prophet,  Tarnov  deserves  to  be  mentioned.  His  Commentare  zu 
den  kl.  Pr.,  first  separately,  and  then  collectively,  published  by  Carp- 
zov  (L.  1688,  1706),  surpassed  all  that  had  preceded,  and  furnished 
a  good  basis  for  future  labors.  Besides  these,  we  mention  the 
Commentar  von  Ch.  B.  Michaelis  in  den  Biblia  Halcnsia,  which 
is  still  the  best  help  for  a  cursory  reading  of  the  Old  Testament. 
As  the  Commentar  zu  den  kl.  Pr.  is  among  the  rest  the  most  distin- 
guished, so  again,  that  on  Zechariah  is  preferable  to  those  on  the 
other  minor  prophets.  It  exhibits  a  careful  use  of  what  had  before 
been  done,  sound  judgment,  far  less  doctrinal  prejudice,  than  •  e.  g. 
in  the  Commentar  iiber  den  Psalmen,  and  in  general  in  the  books 
commented  upon  by  J.  H.  Michaelis;  and,  what  in  the  case  of 
Zechariah  is  altogether  the  chief  excellence,  a  diligent  citation  of 
the  parallel  passages,  which  are  not  to  be  found  so  fully  in  any 
other  general  commentary  ;  but,  along  with  these  excellences,  he  has 
indeed  his  defects;  a  want  of  imagination,  producing  peculiarly  in- 
jurious consequences  in  the  interpretation  of  Zechariah ;  frequently 
rather  the  work  of  a  compiler,  than  one  of  deep  and  original  investiga- 
tion. Lastly,  the  Commentary  of  Burk,  whose  Gnomon  iri  Prophetas 
Minores,  cum  Prcef.  Bengelii,  Heilbr.  17.53,  4to.,  is  indeed  far  inferior 
to  its  exemplar,  which  does   not  so  well  admit  of  an  imitation  as 


1 4  ZECHARIAH. 

some  others,  and  is  particularly  weak  in  philology,  but  still  mani- 
fests independent  study  and  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
Scripture. 

By  far  the  most  considerable  works  have  proceeded  from  the  Re- 
formed church,  and  indeed  almost  exclusively  from  Holland.  After 
the  preparatory  works  of  Drusius,  reprinted  in  the  Critici  Sacri, 
besides  Grotius,  almost  the  only  interpreter  of  the  minor  prophets 
among  them,  a  comparison  of  whom  still  rewards  the  labor,  and 
Cocceius  (his  Comm.  on  the  Proph.  3Iinores,  t.  III.  Opp.  p.  387, 
sq.),  who  deserves,  at  least,  the  praise  of  having  given  a  whole- 
some impulse  to  his  successors,  who  knew  how  to  separate  the 
wheat  from  the  enormous  mass  of  chaff,  appeared  the  Commentary 
of  Mark,  on  the  minor  prophets,  (Amsterd.  1696-  1701,  4  Bde  4to, 
neue  Aufl.  mit  einer  Vorr.  vom  Kanzler  Pfaff,  Tub.  1734,  1  Bd. 
fol.)  This  is  still  the  most  important  work  on  the  minor  prophets, 
a  tolerably  complete  collection  of  the  whole  exegetical  apparatus,  a 
sort  of  catena  of  the  earlier  interpreters,  and  indispensable  to  every 
subsequent  one,  on  account  of  the  independent  labors  of  the  author ; 
who,  in  a  good  measure  free  from  the  exegetical  aberrations  then 
prevalent  in  Holland,  and  occupying  the  middle  ground  between 
the  two  extremes,  exhibits  in  general  a  sound  judgment.  It  has 
indeed  its  dark  sides,  of  considerable  importance;  is  tedious  on  ac- 
count of  its  prolixity  and  diffuseness,  deficient  in  grammatical  acute- 
ness,  and  hence  a  frequent  hesitation  between  different  interpreta- 
tions, or  an  inadmissible  combination  of  them  ;  it  often  exhibits 
more  diligence  in  compiling  than  independent  and  deep  investiga- 
tion. Vitringa  {Commentarii  ad  Libriim  Pi-ophetiaruin  ZacharicB, 
qu(S  supcrswit.  Ed.  Venema.  Leuw.  1734,  4to.)  it  is  to  be  regretted, 
was  unable  to  finish  his  work,  which  was  broken  off  by  his  death. 
We  possess  only  his  Prolegomena,  the  Comm.  on  chap.  1,  2,  and  a 
Meditatio  in  Visum  de  Candelahro  Aureo.  Still  this  work  is  worthy 
of  its  pious,  learned,  and  talented  author,  (comp.  Th.  1,  2,  p.  12.) 
The  Sermones  Academici  vice  Commentarii  in  Lib.  Zack.,  of  Vene- 
ma, Leuw.  1789,  4to.,  have  not  yet  been  seen  by  the  author. 

We  believe  we  need  fear  no  contradiction,  when  we  assert,  that 
the  present  age  has  accomplished  nothing  for  Zechariah,  and  indeed 
that  the  interpretation  of  him,  because  the  diligent  use  of  existing 
materials  has  been  found  too  laborious,  has  considerably  retrograded. 
The  commentary  of  RosenmiJller,  —  not  to  notice  the  works  of 
Bauer,  —  is,  and  this  is  the  ground  of  its  superiority  to  the  rest, 


ZECHARIAH  1:1-6.  15 

little  more  than  a  reprint  of  that  of  Michaelis,  with  the  omission  of 
whatever  did  not  suit  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  author;  Eichhorn, 
who  seems  to  have  compared  no  other  interpreter  than  Grotius, 
gives  in  his  work  on  the  Hebrew  prophets  only  his  exegetical  fan- 
cies, which  Theiner  (die  zwolf  kleineren  Propheten.  Leipz.  1828), 
(also  as  an  unsolicited  continuation  of  the  Brentano-Dereserschen 
Bibelwerkes,  which  is  in  many  respects  praiseworthy,)  has  for  the 
most  part  contented  himself  with  transcribing.  The  neglect  of 
thorough  study  manifests  itself  in  almost  every  thing  that  recent 
Lexicons  and  Introductions  contain  relating  to  Zechariah. 


I. 

Chap.  1  :  1-6. 


The  first  revelation,  imparted  to  the  prophet  in  the  second  year  and 
eighth  month  of  the  reign  of  Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspes.  This  pro- 
phecy, in  which  the  prophet  warns  the  people  not  to  bring  upon  them- 
selves the  punishment  of  their  fathers  by  a  relapse  into  their  sins,  and 
exhorts  them  to  turn  to  the  Lord  in  sincerity,  may  be  regarded  as  a 
sort  of  introduction,  as  well  to  the  whole  course  of  the  prophet,  as 
also  to  the  collection  of  his  prophecies.  New  and  suspicious  indi- 
cations of  inward  apostasy  from  the  Lord  already  showed  themselves 
among  those  who  had  returned.  Such  particularly  was  the  negligent 
prosecution  of  the  building  of  the  temple,  which  must  be  combated 
by  a  true  prophet,  not  separately  from  its  source,  but  in  the  deepest 
root  from  which  it  sprung.  The  prophet  in  his  later  predictions 
had  to  furnish  a  succession  of  consoling  views  to  the  troubled  and 
desponding.  In  order  that  these  might  not  be  appropriated  to  them- 
selves by  those  to  whom  they  did  not  belong,  and  abused  to  the 
promotion  of  carnal  security,  it  was  necessary  that  true  repentance 
should  be  prominently  exhibited  as  the  condition  of  the  coming 
prosperity.  The  threatening  of  new  judgments  for  those,  who  would 
not  fulfil  this  condition,  contains  already  in  the  germ  all  that  the 
prophet  in  chap.  5,  and  chap.  11,  more  definitely  predicts  concern- 
ing a  new  and  total  desolation  and  destruction,  which  would  come 
upon  the  land,  after  ungodliness  should  there  have  regained  the 
ascendency,  and  the  good  shepherd  have  been  rejected  ;  with  this 


16  ZECHARIAH  1  ;  7-17. 

difference  only,  that  here  the  threatening  is  conditionally,  and  there 
absolutely  expressed,  since  the  Lord  reveals  to  the  prophet,  that  the 
condition  of  the  divine  judgments,  the  developement  of  the  germ 
of  uncrodliness  already  existing  in  his  time,  would  actually  ensue, 
and  the  greatest  portion  of  the  people  would  not  fulfil  the  condition 
of  the  prosperity  by  true  repentance. 


II. 

Chap.   1:  7  —  6:   15. 


The  second  revelation,  imparted  to  the  prophet  in  the  same  year, 
in  the  eleventh  month  and  twenty-fourth  day,  consists  of  a  series  of 
visions  which  all  belong  to  one  night,  and  furnish  a  complete  image 
of  the  future  destinies  of  the  people  of  God, 

1.    The  Vision  of  the  Rider  among  the  Myrtle  Trees. 

Chap.  1  :  V.  7-17. 

In  the  stillness  of  night,  when  the  soul,  freed  from  the  bonds 
imposed  by  external  objects  is  strengthened  for  the  contemplation 
of  divine  things,  the  prophet,  not  in  a  dream,  but  an  ecstasy,  sees  a 
proud  horseman  on  a  red  horse,  who  halts  among  the  myrtle  bushes 
of  a  deep  valley,  surrounded  by  red,  bay,  and  white  horses.  He 
recognises,  in  the  horseman  in  front,  the  angel  of  the  Lord ;  in 
his  companions  his  ministering  angels.  He  asks  an  angel,  who 
approaches  him,  and  makes  himself  known  as  the  angelus  inter- 
pres,  concerning  the  import  of  the  vision.  By  his  mediation  he 
receives  from  the  angel  of  the  Lord  the  disclosure,  that  the  horse- 
men are  the  servants  of  the  Lord,  who  traverse  the  whole  earth  to 
execute  his  commission.  For  what  object,  he  learns  from  the  ac- 
count which  they  render  to  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  in  his  presence, 
and  audible  by  him,  since  the  angelus  interpres  has  opened  his  ears. 
They  have  found  the  whole  earth  quiet  and  peaceful.  From  this 
account,  which  places  the  sad  condition  of  the  people  of  the  Lord 
in  a  stronger  light,  by  contrasting  it  with  the  prosperous  condition 
of  the  heathen,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  takes  occasion  to   offer  an 


ZECHARIAH  1  :  7-17.  17 

intercession  for  the  former  with  the  Most  High  God,  in  which  he 
earnestly  inquires,  whether,  since  the  seventy  years  of  affliction, 
destined  by  him  for  the  people  according  to  the  prediction  of  his 
prophet  Jeremiah,  have  long  since  passed  away,*  there  is  still  no 
deliverance  for  them  to  be  expected.  He  receives  from  the  Lord  a 
consoling  answer.  This  is  communicated  by  the  angelus  interpres, 
together  with  a  charge  to  make  its  contents  publicly  known.  They 
are  as  follows.  The  vengeance  of  the  Lord  shall  overtake  the 
nations  in  his  own  time,  though  they  are  now  in  a  peaceful  and 
prosperous  condition,  who  have  executed  his  commission  to  punish 
the  covenant  people,  not  from  regard  to  his  will,  but  to  gratify  their 
own  desires,  and  at  the  same  time  with  a  malicious  cruelty  which 
went  beyond  his  commands.  In  like  manner  also  shall  the  prom- 
ises made  to  the  covenant  people  be  fulfilled,  although  they  seem  to 
be  delayed.  They  shall  receive  rich  proofs  of  the  enduring  election 
of  God  ;  the  building  of  the  temple  shall  be  completed  ;  Jerusalem 
shall  arise  from  its  ruins. 

The  following  remarks  may  promote  a  nearer  insight  into  the 
import  and  object  of  this  vision.  It  is  very  important  in  order  to 
an  understanding  of  this,  as  well  as  the  following  visions,  to  inquire 
whether  the  angelus  interpres  is  identical  with  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  or  different  from  him.  The  former  is  asserted  by  the  majority 
of  interpreters  (Mark,  Ch.  B.  Michaelis,  Rosenm.),  the  latter  by 
Vitringa,  with  whom  we  decidedly  agree.  In  favor  of  their  identity 
the  following  arguments  are  urged.  1.  Verse  9,  where  the  prophet 
addresses  the  angelus  interpres  by  "  my  Lord,"  the  address  must 
necessarily  be  directed  to  the  angel  of  the  Lord ;  since  no  other 
person  had  been  mentioned  before.  But  in  this  it  is  overlooked, 
that  in  the  prophecies  generally,  and  specially  in  the  visions  agree- 
ably to  their  dramatic  character,  persons  are  very  often  introduced 
as  speaking,  or  are  spoken  to,  without  being  previously  mentioned. 
2.  Verse  9,  the  angelus  interpres  promises  the  prophet  a  disclosure 
concerning  the  import  of  the  vision.     This,  however,  is  imparted, 

*  Vitringa  1.  c.  p.  17 :  "  Est  pulcherrimura  Petavii  aliorumque  observatuni, 
periodum  LXX.  annorum,  decretorum  punitioni  JudjesB  gentis  ad  perfectum 
implementura  propiietiEe  bis  reprsesentatara  esse.  A  quarto  Jehojachimi  usqeu 
ad  iiiitia  Babylonica  Cyri,  quando  dimissi  sunt  Judsei  ex  exilio,  effluxerunt 
LXX.  anni.  Rursus  totidem  anni  effluxerunt  ab  excidio  templi  et  urbis,  quod 
accidit  octodecim  post  annis,  usque  ad  secundum  Darii  Hystaspis :  intersunt 
enim  rursus  inter  initia  Cyri  Babylonica  et  Darii  secundum  anni  octodecim," 
VOL.    H.  3 


18  ZECHARIAH  1  :  7-17. 

V.  10,  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  who  must  therefore  be  identical 
with  the  angelus  interpres.  But  it  is  said,  v.  9,  "  I  will  make  thee 
to  see,  what  these  are."  This  relates  to  the  opening  of  the  spiritual 
eyes  and  ears  of  the  prophet.  Until  this  was  done  by  the  avgelus 
interpres  the  prophet  would  not  be  able  to  understand  the  declaration 
of  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  the  report  made  to  him  by  the  minis- 
tering angels  ;  comp.  chap.  4:1,  according  to  which  the  angelus  in- 
terpres awakens  the  prophet,  as  a  man  who  is  awakened  from  sleep. 
3.  According  to  v.  12,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  presents  an  interces- 
sion to  the  Most  High  God  for  the  covenant  people.  According  to 
V.  13,  the  Lord  returns  to  the  angelus  interpres,  good,  consoling 
words ;  but  now  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  he  who  receives  the 
answer  is  any  other  than  he  who  makes  the  inquiry.  It  may, 
however,  here  be  assumed,  either  with  Vitringa,  that  the  prophet 
has  only  omitted  the  circumstance,  that  the  answer  was  in  tho  first 
place  directed  to  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  afterwards  conveyed  by 
him  to  the  angelus  interpres,  or,  which  is  more  probable,  that  the 
Lord  directed  the  answer  immediately  to  the  angelus  interpres,  be- 
cause the  angel  of  the  Lord  had  inquired,  not  indeed  on  his  own 
account,  but  only  in  order  to  impart  consolation  and  hope  through 
the  angelus  interpres  to  the  prophet,  and  through  him  to  the  people. 

On  the  contrary  the  following  arguments  go  to  prove  the  angelus 
interpres  to  be  different  from  the  angel  of  the  Lord. 

1.  Even  the  constant  designation  of  the  angelus  intei-pres  by 
"  the  angel,  who  spake  with  me,"  serves  to  designate  him  as  a 
different  person  from  the  angel  of  the  Lord.  This  would  not  be 
the  case,  if  the  designation  occurred  only  where  an  address  of  the 
angel  to  the  prophet  had  preceded.  But  its  occurrence  elsewhere 
also,  comp.  e.  g.  v.  9,  13,  shows,  that  it  relates  not  to  a  single 
action,  but  to  the  office  of  the  angel,  —  angelus  collocutor  or  inter- 
pres. In  order  to  make  the  designation  known  as  a  name  of  office, 
the  prophet  employs  it  exclusively,  without  the  smallest  deviation, 
without  ever  exchanging  the  construction  of  the  verb  im  with  3, 
for  that  with  D;^  or  nx,  elsewhere  common,  which  may  be  explained 
by  the  circumstance,  that  the  words  were  carefully  treasured  up  in 
the  mind  of  the  hearer. 

"2.  Chap.  2 :  5  -  8,  is  entirely  decisive.  The  prophet  there  sees  a 
form  occupied  in  measuring  the  future  circumference  of  Jerusalem. 
The  angelus  interpres  withdraws  himself  from  the  prophet,  in  order 
to  make  inquiries  for  him  concerning  the  import  of  the  vision.     But 


ZECHARIAH  1  :  7-17.  19 

he  has  not  yet  reached  his  goal,  when  another  angel  meets  him 
with  the  command  ;  "  Run,  say  to  this  young  man,"  &c.  The 
identity  of  the  angclus  interprcs  with  the  angel  of  the  Lord  being 
assumed,  the  hitter  would  receive  commands  in  an  authoritative 
tone  from  an  inferior  angel,  which  is  entirely  irreconcilable  with 
the  high  dignity,  in  which  he  elsewhere  constantly  appears,  and 
particularly  in  Zechariah.  To  this  it  must  be  added,  tiiat  he,  who 
measures  Jerusalem,  is,  in  all  probability,  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
himself.  This  being  assumed,  his  identity  with  the  angclus  inter- 
prcs  becomes  the  more  improbable,  since  the  latter  is  with  the 
propliet  at  first,  and  afterwards  withdraws  from  him,  to  make  inqui- 
ries about  the  vision. 

3.  It  is  remarkable,  that  a  divine  work  or  a  divine  name  is  never 
attributed  to  the  angclus  inttrpres,  as  to  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  that 
his  agency  is  always  confined  to  communicating  higher  commands 
to  the  prophet,  and  giving  him  insight  into  the  visions,  which  are 
never  through  him,  but  always  through  the  Lord,  (comp.  3  :  3,  3: 
1,)  presented  to  the  inward  contemplation  of  the  prophet. 

4.  The  result  already  obtained  is  confirmed  by  a  comparison  of  it 
with  what  occurs  in  other  writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  We 
have  already  seen.  Vol.  1,  p.  1G7,  that,  Exod.  32  :  34,  another  angel 
is  associated  with  the  highest  revealer  of  God,  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  as  standing  to  him  in  the  same  relation  which  he  sustains 
to  the  Most  High  God.  But  what  is  found  in  Daniel  on  this  sub- 
ject is  peculiarly  important  in  the  interpretation  of  Zechariah. 
The  angel  of  the  Lord,  the  great  Prince,  who  represents  his  people, 
chap.  12:  1,  comp.  Zech.  1  :  12,  appears  there  under  the  symboli- 
cal name  of  Michael.  As  a  mediator  between  him  (who  is  present 
for  the  most  part  in  silent  majesty,  and  only  sometimes,  as  here, 
speaking  a  few  words)  and  the  prophet,  Gabriel  appears,  whose 
office  it  is  to  interpret  the  visions  to  Daniel,  and  enable  him  to 
understand  them;  comp.  8:  16,  9:21.  (Beitr.  1,  p.  165  ff".)  We 
would  already  there  have  directed  the  attention  to  the  accurate 
agreement  between  Daniel  and  Zechariah  in  this  respect,  the  more 
remarkable  on  account  of  the  manifest  independence  of  both,  if  we 
had  at  that  time,  as  we  have  been  enabled  to  do  since,  attained  to 
a  certain  result  in  reference  to  Zechariah. 

The  angel  of  the  Lord  halts  on  a  red  horse  among  the  myrtle 
bushes,  in  a  deep  valley.  The  latter  is  a  striking  image  of  the 
Theocracy,  —  not  a  proud  cedar  on  a  high  mountain,  but  a  mode.st, 


20  ZECHARIAH  1  :  7-17. 

yet  lovely  myrlle  in  a  deep  valley.  Similar  is  the  comparison  of  the 
Theocracy  with  the  still  waters  of  Siloa,  in  contrast  with  the  roar- 
ing waters  of  the  Euphrates.  Is.  chap.  8.  While  outward  splendor 
surrounded  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
always  small  and  obscure,  and  appeared,  especially  at  that  time,  to 
be  near  its  extinction.  That  the  angel  of  the  Lord  halts  among  the 
myrtle  bushes,  indicates  the  high  protection  which  the  church  of 
God,  helples.s  in  itself,  enjoys.  The  import  of  the  appearance  of  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  as  sitting  on  a  horse,  and  indeed  on  a  red  horse, 
we  cannot  better  express  than  in  the  words  of  Theodoret :  jovtov 
oQn  inoxoVfjEvov  flip  'imioj  dia  tijv  oSi'xTjTa  rav  dgw^ivcov,  to  Si  rot/ 
tViTTOU  nVQ^ov  TTjV  VMTU  Twv  TioXefilMV  e&vcov  ayavay.Ttiaiv  8i]Xoi '  vcpat- 
1.10V  yuQ  xnl  vnifjvdQov  to  -S^v^ondig.  Red  is  the  color  of  blood  ;  in 
red  garments,  Is.  63  ;  the  angel  of  the  Lord  comes  from  Bozrah,  after 
he  has  crushed  the  enemies  of  his  kingdom ;  on  a  red  horse,  Apoc. 
G  :  4,  Satan  appears,  to  whom  it  is  given  to  take  peace  from  the 
earth,  that  men  shall  slay  each  other,  and  who  bears  a  great  sword. 
By  tha  color  of  -the  horse,  therefore,  is  symbolized  what  the  angel 
of  the  Lord,  v.  15,  says  of  himself:  "I  am  inflamed  with  great 
wrath  against  the  secure  and  quiet  nations,"  comp.  Is.  47  :  6.  The 
inferior  angels,  which  surrounded  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  symbolize 
the  thought,  that  all  means  for  the  prosperity  of  his  people,  and 
the  destruction  of  his  enemies,  are  at  his  command.  The  color  of 
their  horses  signifies  the  judgments  impending  over  the  latter,  about 
to  be  executed  with  victorious  might.  White  is  the  color  of  victory  ; 
comp.  Apoc.  6 :  2 ;  "  And  1  saw,  and  behold  a  white  horse  :  and  he 
that  sat  on  him  had  a  bow  ;  and  a  crown  was  given  unto  him  :  and 
he  went  forth  conquering,  and  to  conquer."  That  the  angels  are 
sent  to  spy  out  the  condition  of  the  earth,  and  that  they  bring  back 
the  answer,  that  the  whole  earth  is  at  rest,  is  designed  to  symbolize 
the  thought,  that  it  is  now  time  for  the  accomplishment  of  the 
promises  in  favor  of  the  covenant  people,  and  the  threatenings 
against  their  enemies.  There  reigned  in  the  second  year  of  Darius 
a  general  peace  ;  all  the  nations  of  the  former  Chaldean  kingdom 
enjoyed  a  peaceful  and  uninterrupted  prosperity.  Even  the  Baby- 
lonians (that  to  them  the  words,  "  the  whole  earth  is  at  rest,"  prin- 
cipally refer,  appears  from  v.  15.  Jun.  and  Trem.  appropriately 
remark  :  "  Delitias  agit  Buhylonius  et  quisquis  advcrsarius  ecdesicE, 
dum  ecclesia  tua  maximis  tempestatibus  agitatur")  had  soon  recover- 
ed   from   the   disadvantages   they    had    suffered    from    the  capture 


ZECHARIAH  1  :  7-17.  21 

of  the  city  by  Cyrus,  which  was  still  rich  and  prosperous.  Judea 
alone,  the  seat  of  the  people  of  God,  exhibited  a  mournful  aspect ; 
the  capital  still  lay  for  the  most  part  in  ruins;  no  protecting  walls 
surrounded  it ;  the  building  of  the  temple,  which  had  been  some 
months  before  recommenced  at  the  exhortation  of  Haggai,  had 
hitherto  been  obstructed  by  difficulties,  which  the  dispirited  people 
despaired  of  being  able  to  overcome;  the  number  of  inhabitants  was 
but  small  ;  the  greatest  portion  of  the  land  still  lay  waste ;  comp. 
Neh.  chap.  1.  This  state  of  things  must  have  been  a  great  temp- 
tation to  the  pious ;  and  have  served  the  wicked  as  an  excuse  for 
their  ungodliness;  comp.  Mai.  3:  17,  where  the  latter  inquire, 
"  Every  one  that  doeth  evil  is  good  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and 
he  delighteth  in  them;  or,  Where  is  the  God  of  judgment?"  and 
3  :  15,  "  Therefore  we  praise  only  the  despisers,  for  the  ungodly  in- 
crease, they  tempt  God  and  all  goes  well  with  them."  It  required 
great  strength  of  faith,  under  such  circumstances,  not  to  doubt 
either  the  truth  of  God  or  his  omnipotence.  His  promises  to  the 
covenant  people  had  only  begun,  and  that  in  a  small  degree,  to  be 
fulfilled  by  their  return ;  his  predicted  judgments  upon  Babylon 
extended  much  farther  than  to  a  mere  capture  of  the  city,  and  even 
this  beginning  of  their  fulfilment  had  apparently  ceased,  since  the 
city  was  continually  regaining  its  former  prosperity.  To  counteract 
the  temptations,  destructive  of  all  active  zeal  for  the  Theocracy, 
which  this  condition  of  things  must  bring  with  it,  is  the  object  of  the 
prophecy.  That  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appears  as  protector  of  his 
people,  afforded  them  of  itself  a  rich  source  of  consolation.  That  he 
presented  an  intercession  for  his  people,  showed  still  more  clearly, 
that  the  time  of  compassion  was  at  hand.  For  his  intercession  can- 
not be  in  vain,  nor  the  will  of  God  unknown  to  him.  By  the 
answer,  which  the  Lord  imparts  to  him,  must  every  remnant  of  fear 
and  despondency  be  removed  ;  it  showed,  that  his  promises  and 
threatenings  though  gradually,  and  at  the  time  determined  in  his 
holy  and  wise  counsel,  would  yet  certainly  be  fulfilled.  We  have 
now  still  to  remark  a  few  words  concerning  the  fulfilment.  Its  com- 
mencement ensued  even  in  the  nearest  future.  The  rebellion  of 
the  Babylonians  under  Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspes,  brought  the 
city  near  to  its  predicted  entire  destruction.  Not  to  insist  that  it 
may  be  regarded  as  a  consequence  of  the  capture  by  Cyrus,  it  in- 
flicted upon  the  city  still  deeper  wounds.  A  great  slaughter  was 
occasioned  and  its  walls  were  destroyed.     The  building  of  the  tern- 


22  ZECHARIAH  2:  1-4. 

pie  was  happily  completed  in  the  sixth  year  of  Darius.  The  arrival 
of  Ezra,  and  somewhat  later,  that  of  Nehemiah,  who  restored  the 
walls  of  the  city,  and  greatly  increased  its  population,  were  a  strong 
proof  to  the  people  of  the  divine  mercy,  and  a  sign  of  their  endur- 
ing election.  But  we  must  not  seek  for  the  fulfilment  in  all  its 
extent  at  this  early  period.  The  prophecies  of  Zechariah,  like  those 
of  the  earlier  prophets,  embrace  the  whole  complexus  of  the  salva- 
tion and  of  the  judgments  of  God,  with  the  exclusion  only  of  what 
had  already  taken  place,  as,  namely,  the  capture  of  Babylon  and 
the  return  of  the  covenant  people.  What,  therefore,  is  here  said  in 
reference  to  the  anger  of  the  Lord  upon  Babylon,  and  the  remaining 
enemies  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  has  its  completion  only  in  their 
entire  destruction  ;  what  is  said  of  the  renewed  mercy  of  God 
towards  his  people,  in  the  sending  of  the  Messiah.  The  beginning 
of  the  fulfilment  in  the  nearest  future  served  the  people  for  a  pledge 
of  the  certainty  of  its  completion. 

2.    The  Four  Horns  and  the  Four  Smiths. 

Chap.  2:  v.  1  -4. 

This  vision  also  is  of  a  consoling  import.  The  prophet  sees  four 
horns,  and  receives  from  the  angclus  inicrpres  the  disclosure,  that 
they  signify  the  enemies  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  then  sees 
four  smiths,  who  break  the  horns  in  pieces.  The  sense  is  obvious. 
The  enemies  of  the  people  of  God  shall  be  punished  for  their 
crimes  ;  the  Lord  will  secure  his  feeble  church  against  every  assault. 
So  far  all  interpreters  agree ;  the  number  of  the  horns,  or  of  the 
enemies,  has,  however,  occasioned  a  multitude  of  arbitrary  hypothe- 
ses. The  true  interpretation  was  seen  even  by  Theodoret :  Tiaaaga 
8e  Xiysi,  ovx  i&vwv  rivuv  ccgi&^ov  dijXcov,  all  imidi]  riaaaga  xrjq  oixov- 
^ivTig  T«  Tfi-qfiara,  to  eo)OV,  to  sanigiov,  to  votiov,  to  ^ogsiov,  sTtijX&ov 
de  amoHq  ol  fiev  tv&sv,  ol  Se  txsl&sv,  tiote  (ih  "Aaavgioi  xul  Bafiv- 
Xarioi,  TiOTS  ds  ^AlXocfvXoi,  xal  Alyvnxioi,  uXXots  ds  'idovuaioi  xal  Moiu- 
^TUi  xul  A^^iKOflrai,  xiaaaga  xigocTu  Tovg  iv.  twj'  XEoaugoiv  T^imuxcov 
aiiTolg  ijifX&ovxag  ngoGi]y6givaE.  That  the  number  of  the  horns 
relates  to  the  fact,  that  the  covenant  people  were  surrounded  by 
enemies  on  all  sides,  all  quarters  of  the  heavens,  appears  from  v. 
10  ;  "  According  to  all  the  four  winds  have  I  scattered  you  ;  "  but 
still  more  clearly  from  chap.  6,  as  we  shall  there  see. 


Z  ECH ARIA  H  2 :  5  - 17.  2  3 

3.    The  Angel  with  the  Measuring  Line. 

Chap.  2  :  V.  5  -  17. 

The  symbolical  apparatus  is  here  but  small.  The  prophet,  like 
Ezekiel  before  him,  chap.  40  :  3,  sees  a  form  employed  in  measur- 
ing the  future  circumference  of  Jerusalem,  since  its  present  limits 
will  not  be  sufficient  when  the  city  shall  be  enlarged  by  the  mercy 
of  the  Lord.  This  form  is  in  all  probability  none  other  than  the 
angel  of  the  Lord;  that  the  employment  is  entirely  suited  to  him, 
who,  as  the  protecting  Lord  of  the  covenant  people  should  accom- 
plish this  enlargement,  needs  no  proof.  His  sending  an  inferior 
angel  to  the  angelus  interpres,  and  imparting  commands  to  him, 
indicates  a  higher  dignity  than  that  of  an  inferior  angel.  We  then 
have  the  advantage  of  an  accurate  agreement  with  Dan.  chap.  12, 
where  entirely  the  same  persons  appear  in  action,  Michael,  the 
angel  of  the  Lord,  in  company  with  Gabriel,  the  angelus  interpres, 
and  another  angel,  (comp.  Beitr.  1,  p.  167  fT.)  The  angelus  inter- 
pres, who  had  hitherto  remained  with  the  prophet,  who  was  a  some- 
what distant  spectator  of  the  scene,  withdraws  himself  from  him,  in 
order  to  receive  from  the  angel  of  the  Lord  a  disclosure  concerning 
the  import  of  his  conduct.  But  scarcely  has  he  departed,  when  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  sends  him  this  disclosure  by  another  angel,  with, 
the  command  to  impart  it  to  Zechariah.  From  the  designation  of 
the  latter,  in  the  discourse  of  the  angel,  as  "  this  young  man," 
the  youthful  age  of  Zechariah  at  the  time  has  been  justly  inferred  ; 
but  still  there  is  certainly  something  else  also  as  the  ground  of  this 
designation.  This  was  perceived  by  Jerome,  who  remarks,  "  Ad 
com-parationem  dignitatis  angelictx  onine^n  humanam  naturam  pueri- 
tiam  vocari,  quia  non  angeli  in  nos,  sed  nos  in  angclos  prqficimus." 
In  like  manner,  Vitringa  :  "  Hominem  hrevis  mvi  mxdtarum  rerum 
imperitum,  ccelestium  maxime  ignarum  non  tarn  contetntus,  quam  dif- 
fer entice  causa  appellat  i;?J,  et  liceat  dicere  rudem,  multa  docendum, 
quo  eodem  sensu  Ezechiel  passim  DTX  p  appellatur."  The  inter- 
preters have  erred  only  in  adopting  exclusively  one  of  the  two 
references.  The  youthful  age  of  the  prophet  is  made  prominent, 
because  youth  is  a  type  of  the  condition  of  man  in  relation  to  God 
and  his  holy  angels.  What  the  other  angel  imparts  to  the  angelus 
interpres  for  Zechariah,  is  as  follows  ;  the  city  shall  be  extended  far 


24  ZECHARIAH  2 :  5-17. 

beyond  its  previous  limits  and  protected  and  glorified  by  the  Lord. 
This  should  excite  all  the  Jews  remaining  behind  in  Babylon  to  a 
speedy  return  to  their  native  land,  that  they  may  participate  vs^ith 
their  brethren  in  the  promised  blessings,  and  escape  the  judgments 
which  the  Lord  has  determined  upon  Babylon,  and  all  the  other 
nations,  who  have  showed  themselves  hostile  tcf  the  covenant  people. 
Lastly,  Jerusalem  shall  experience  the  highest  exaltation  from  the 
fact,  that  tlie  Lord  himself  shall  make  her  his  dwelling-place,  the 
consequence  of  which  will  be,  that  many  nations  shall  join  themselves 
to  the  Theocracy  when  glorified  by  his  presence.  We  have  yet  some 
remarks  to  make  on  this  prediction.  1.  "  Flee  out  of  the  north  country, 
deliver  thyself  from  Babylon,"  v.  10,  11,  points  to  a  great  calamity 
coming  upon  Babylon.  That  such  a  calamity  actually  fell  upon  the 
city  under  the  reign  of  Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspes,  we  have  already 
seen.     With  these  words,  v.  13,  13,  are  connected  by  the  causative 

0,  since  the  general  proposition,  the  annunciation  that  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  would  punish  the  enemies  of  his  people  for  their  crimes, 
and  indeed  in  such  a  manner,  that  they  would  fall  under  the  power 
of  Israel,  as  it  happened  in  respect  to  several  neighbouring  people 
in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  constitutes  the  ground  of  the  special 
direction  which  had  preceded.  Hence  it  appears  with  what  justice 
some  have  denied  the  genuineness  of  the  second  part  of  Zechariah, 
because  several  nations  are  threatened  in  it  with  divine  judgments, 
who  in  his  time  were  subject  to  the  Persians.  If  their  independence 
could  hence  be  inferred,  so  also  could  that  of  the  Babylonians  from 
this  prophecy  and  the  foregoing,  and,  therefore,  even  the  first  part 
could  not  belong  to  Zechariah.  2.  The  prediction  of  prosperity 
for  Jerusalem  here  also  relates  in  the  end  to  the  time  of  the  Mes- 
siah. We  must  refer  exclusively  to  this  time  what  is  said,  v.  14,  15, 
of  the  dwelling  of  the  Lord  with  Jerusalem,  and  the  consequent 
pressing  of  the  heathen  nations  to  the  Theocracy,  as  a  splendid 
demonstration  of  the  divine  mercy,  which,  according  to  v.  17,  all 
flesh  shall  behold  with  astonishment  and  wonder.  That  he,  who 
will  glorify  the  Theocracy  by  his  presence,  is  the  angel  of  the  Lord, 
the  sharer  of  his  dignity  and  his  name,  who,  according  to  the  pre- 
diction of  the  prophet,  shall  appear  in  the   Messiah   (comp.  Vol. 

1.  p.  183),  is  evident  from  v.  15,  "  And  then  will  I  dwell  in  the 
midst  of  thee,  and  thou  shalt  experience,  that  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth 
has  sent  me  to  thee."  According  to  this,  he,  who  will  dwell  in  the 
midst  of  the  covenant  people,  in  like   manner  as  he  was  formerly 


I 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3.  25 

present  among  them  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire,  is  the  same, 
who,  being  now  sent  from  the  Most  High  God,  brings  to  the  people, 
through  the  prophet,  this  glorious  message,  and  who,  in  v.  14,  is 
called  Jehovah,  and  is  here  distinguished  from  him  as  the  ambassa- 
dor from  him  who  sends  him.  That  he  is  identical  with  the  Messiah, 
appears  from  chap.  9  :  9,  where  the  arrival  of  the  latter  is  announced 
to  the  people  in  almost  the  same  words;  here  :  "  Sing  and  rejoice, 
O  daughter  of  Zion,  for  behold  I  come  ;  "  there  :  "  Rejoice  greatly, 
O  daughter  of  Zion,  shout,  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem,  behold  the 
king  Cometh  unto  thee." 

Chap.  11  gives  a  further  explanation,  according  to  which  the  an- 
gel of  the  Lord  appearing  in  the  person  of  the  Messiah  among  the 
people,  with  whom  he  had  hitherto  been  invisibly  present,  and  whom 
he  had  represented  before  God,  undertakes  to  exercise  the  office  of 
shepherd  over  them.  While  here,  in  chap.  9,  only  the  bright  side, 
there,  in  accordance  with  chap.  5,  at  the  same  time  the  dark  side,  the 
unbelief  of  the  greatest  part  of  the  pffople  in  the  manifested  Messiah, 
and  his  rejection,  is  prominently  exhibited.  The  reference  of  the 
prophecy  to  the  Messianic  times  was  acknowledged  by  the  older 
Jewish  interpreters  in  Jerome,  as  well  as  by  Kimchi  and  Abarbanel. 

4.    The  High  Priest  Joshua  before  the  Angel  of  the  Lord. 
Chap.  3. 

V.  1.  "  And  (the  Lord)  showed  me  Joshua,  the  high  priest,  standing 
before  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  Satan  standing  at  his  right  hand 
to  oppose  him."  The  fut.  with  vav  convers.  closely  connects  this 
vision  with  the  foregoing,  and  gives  us  one  of  g,  series  of  visions 
granted  to  the  prophet  in  the  same  night.  The  subject  in,  "•  he 
showed  me,"  is  without  doubt  the  Lord,  as  the  Seventy  and  Jerome 
have  already  perceived.  It  is  the  most  natural,  because  he  had  men- 
tioned him  immediately  before,  and  indeed  in  a  sentence  with  which 
the  vav  convers.  connects.  In  addition  to  this  is  the  comparison  of 
chap.  2:3,  "  The  Lord  showed  me  four  smiths."  According  to  the 
common  supposition,  the  subject  is  the  angelus  collocutor ;  but  uni- 
formly only  the  interpretation,  not  the  presenting  of  the  images,  be- 
longs to  him.  The  expression  ^njn  \r\2r\  stands  here,  as  v.  8,  and 
chap.  6  :  11,  with  peculiar  emphasis.  It  shows,  that  Joshua  is  not 
here  considered  according  to  his  person,  but  his  office ;  not  according 

VOL.   II.  4 


26  ZECHARIAH   Chap.  3. 

to  his  private,  but  his  public  character.  The  phrase,  "  standing  be- 
fore the  angel  of  the  Lord,"  is,  for  the  most  part,  misunderstood  by 
interpreters,  They  regard  it  as  a  judicial  expression  ;  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  is  supposed  to  appear  as  a  judge,  Satan  as  an  accuser,  Joshua 
as  one  accused.  Considerable  injury  has  thus  been  done  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  whole  vision.  The  expression,  "to  stand  before  any 
one,"  is  never  spoken  of  the  appearance  of  the  accused  before  the 
judge,  but  rather  always  of  the  appearance  of  the  servant  before  the 
lord,  to  tender  him  his  services  and  await  his  commands.  Comp. 
e.  g.  Gen.  41  :  46,  "  Joseph  was  thirty  years  old  when  he  stood  before 
Pharaoh."  1  Sam.  16:  21,  "  And  David  came  to  Saul  and  stood 
before  him,  and  he  loved  him  greatly,  and  he  became  his  armour- 
bearer."  1  Kings  1  :  28,  10  :  8,  Deut.  1  :  38.  But  the  phrase 
is  most  frequently  employed  in  reference  to  the  service  of  the  Lord  ; 
thus  of  the  prophets,  1  Kings  17:  1,  "  Elias  said.  As  the  Lord  liveth, 
before  whom  I  stand,"  Jer.  18  :  20.  Of  the  whole  people,  2  Chron. 
20 :  13  ;  but  chiefly  of  the  priests,  for  whose  service  it  became  a 
technical  term;  comp.  Deut.  10:  8,  "At  this  time  the  Lord 
separated  from  the  tribe  of  Levi,  —  to  stand  before  the  Lord,  to 
serve  him,  and  to  bless  in  his  name."  2  Chron.  29:11:  "My 
sons  be  not  slack,  for  the  Lord  has  chosen  you  to  stand  before 
him,  to  serve  him,  and  present  to  him  incense."  Ps.  135  :  2, 
"  The  servants  of  the  Lord  who  stand  in  the  house  of  the  Lord." 
Judges  20  :  27,  "  Phineas  stood  before  the  Lord  at  that  time." 
Deut.  17  :  12.  Accordingly  the  prophet  here  also  sees  the  high 
priest  Joshua,  as  such,  engaged  in  serving  the  angel  of  the  Lord, 
who,  V.  2,  appears  under  the  name  Jehovah,  which  belongs  to 
God  alone,  and  who,  v.  4,  ascribes  to  himself  a  work  exclusively 
divine,  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Joshua  implores  his  mercy  for 
himself  and  the  people,  and  presents  to  him  prayers  and  inter- 
cession. Theodoret,  rag  vtisq  tov  Xaov  ■nQsa^siug  nQoacpiqav  tw 
^fM.  The  correctness  of  this  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  v.  4, 
where  'JisS  nnj>  in  like  manner  occurs  of  the  service  of  the  Lord. 
The  following  also  ;  "  and  Satan  stood  at  (properly  over)  his  right 
hand,"  is  commonly  misunderstood.  Proceeding  on  the  supposi- 
tion already  shown  to  be  false,  that  a  judicial  trial  is  here  repre- 
sented, this  has  been  referred  to  an  alleged  custom  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews,  for  which,  however,  there  is  no  proof,  in  accordance  with 
which  the  accuser  stood  on  the  right  hand  of  the  accused.     The 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3.  27 

truth  was  seen  by  Werner  in  his  valuable  treatise,*  De  Josua  Summo 
Sacercl.  ex  Zacli.  3  :  8.  Jena,  1741 ;  '^ Locus  ad  dcxtcram  commodissi- 
mus  est  ei,  qui  alium  in  opcrc  suo  pi-omovere  vuU,  vel  impcdire." 
(Comp.  Ps.  142:  5;  "  Look,  O  Lord,  on  the  right  hand,  I  have 
no  friend,"  (fcc),  Amicus  itaqve  a  dcxtera  nobis  sfat,  ut  nos  eo  melius 
juvet  et  protegat  (Comp.  Ps.  109  :  31 ;  "  The  Lord  stands  at  his  right 
hand,  |''n''S,  to  deliver  him  from  those  who  judge  his  soul."  Ps.  16:  8. 
Ps.  121  :  6)  ;  "  Inirnicus  vero  ad  dexteram  esse  dicitur,  nt  id  quod 
in  nobis  jirmum  est,  turbet  ac  debilitct.'''  That  by  standing  on  the 
right  hand  in  this  passage,  a  violent  and  successful  assault  is  signi- 
fied, appears  especially  from  the  two  parallel  passages  :  Job.  30  : 
12,  "  Upon  my  right  hand  rise  the  youth  ;  they  push  aw<iy  my  feet, 
and  they  raise  up  against  me  the  wages  of  their  destruction  ;  "  and 
Ps.  100  :  9,  "  Set  an  ungodly  man  over  him,  and  let  an  adversary 
stand  at  his  right  hand."  Li  both,  the  S;»  designates  that  which 
oppresses,  prevents  the  action  of  the  right  hand,  paralyzes  all 
the  efforts  of  the  assailed.  Una's  is  well  explained  by  Tarnov  ;  "  Ut 
sic  nominis  sui  mensuram  ab  adversando  Satanas  dictus  iinpleret." 
Riickert :  "  The  enemy  stands  at  his  right  hand  to  oppose  him." 
The  scene  is  accordingly  as  follows  :  the  high  priest  is  in  the  sanc- 
tuary, the  building  of  which  has  been  commenced,  employed  in 
supplicating  the  mercy  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  ;  who,  in  order  to 
testify  his  good  pleasure,  condescends  to  appear  in  the  temple, 
(comp.  V.  7,)  attended  by  a  host  of  angels.  Satan,  the  sworn  enemy 
of  the  church  of  God,  sees  with  envy  the  restoration  of  a  state  of 
reconciliation  between  her  and  the  Lord.  He  endeavours  to  inter- 
rupt it  by  his  accusations.  The  supposition  of  some  of  the  older 
interpreters,  (Kimchi,  Drusius,)  that  Sanballat  and  his  associates, 
who  endeavoured  to  hinder  the  building  of  the  temple,  are  here 
figuratively  represented  by  Satan,  needs  no  refutation.  It  is  already 
shown  to  be  groundless  by  a  comparison  of  the  prologue  to  Job, 
which  Zechariah,  who  always  imitates  those  who  have  gone  before 
him,  had  certainly  in  view,  compare  also  there  chap.  1  :  10,  with 
Zech,  6 :  5.  This  comparison  is  also  important,  inasmuch  as  it 
teaches  us,  what  here  belongs  to  the  drapery  an*  what  to  the  sub- 

*  On  the  contrary,  the  prolix  Dissert,  de  Josua  Summ.  Sac.  o^Ze'ising,  press. 
J.  G.  IValch,  Jena,  1758,  is  vcorthless,  and  does  not  pay  for  the  trouble  of  a 
comparison. 


28  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3. 

ject.  In  both  places,  and  in  the  Apoc.  12  :  10,  where  Satan  is 
called  o  xan'jywQ  tup  adsXcpmv  rjfioijv,  o  tcaTt^yoQwv  cvtojv  ivwniov  xov 
■d-Eov  rj/xoov  Tj/xiga?  aai  vvxto?,  the  doctrinal  import  is  merely,  that 
Satan  makes  every  effort  to  deprive  the  individual  belie_ver  and  the 
whole  church  of  the  mercy  of  God.  That  to  this  end  he  appears 
before  God  in  heaven,  or  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  as  an  accuser, 
appertains  only  to  the  poetical,  or  prophetico-symbolical  representa- 
tion, whose  essence  requires  that  it  should  present  spiritual  relations 
in  a  sensible  form  to  the  contemplation.  It  still  remains  only  to 
inquire,  what  means  Satan  employed,  in  order  to  build  up  a  parti- 
tion wall  between  the  high  priest  and  the  angel  of  the  Lord.  What 
the  Jewish  -interpreters  have  here  invented,  after  the  example  of  the 
Chaldee  paraphrast,  and  which  Jerome  also  incautiously  received 
from  them,  is  in  bad  taste.  According  to  them,  the  ground  of  com- 
plaint was,  the  marriage  of  the  sons  of  Joshua  with  foreign  women. 
Nor  is  there  any  truth  in  the  supposition  of  these  Jewish  interpre- 
ters, and  several  in  recent  times,  as  Eichhorn,  Theiner,  &.c,,  that 
the  accusation  which  Satan  brought  against  the  high  priest  was 
groundless,  and  that  he  was  entirely  innocent.  It  is  contradicted 
by  V.  3-5,  according  to  which,  the  Lord  forgives  the  high  priest 
his  sins,  and,  instead  of  his  unclean  garments,  clothes  him  with 
those  that  are  clean,  the  symbol  of  righteousness  imparted  through 
grace.  The  correct  view  is  as  follows.  The  high  priest  appeared 
here,  as  has  been  already  shown,  in  the  discharge  of  his  office,  and 
represented  in  some  measure  the  whole  people  (Cyril :  6  Si  ys  Ugsvg 
vor}&8irj  av  airl  nuvToq  tov  luov.)  This  appears,  among  other  pas- 
sages, from  Judges  20  :  27,  28,  where  the  high  priest  Phinehas  says 
to  the  Lord,  "  Shall  I  yet  again  go  out  to  battle  against  the  chil- 
dren of  Benjamin,  my  brother,  or  shall  I  cease?  And  the  Lord  said, 
Go  up  ;  for  to-morrow  I  will  deliver  them  into  thine  hand." 

Just  as,  according  to  Lev.  4  :  2,  the  sins  of  the  high  priest  were 
imputed  to  the  people,  "  if  the  anointed  priest  sins  to  the  making 
of  the  people  guilty,"  DJ'H  nntyxS,  —  where  Rosenm.  had  better 
left  the  interpretation  of  Le  Clerc  in  its  deserved  forgetfulness,  — 
so,  on  the  other  hand,  the  high  priest  appears  before  the  Lord  laden 
with  the  sins  of  the  whole  people,  whose  representative  he  was. 
Abenezra  on  Lev.  4  :  13,  bxiK/'  ^2  njJ3  Sipty  Snjn  pon  njni, 
"  Ecce  pontifex  max.  cequiparaiur  universo  Israeli.'^  Compare  other 
proofs  in  Herwerden,  De  Sacerdote  Magn.  Hehr.  Grbningen,  1822, 
p.  9.     This  representative  character  of  the  high  priest  is,  moreover, 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3.  29 

here  peculiarly  evident,  since  the  grounds  whereby  the  Lord,  v.  2, 
rebukes  the  assault  of  Satan,  refer,  not  to  him  personally,  but  to  the 
relation  of  the  whole  people  to  the  Lord.  It  is  only  in  this  way, 
that  the  object  and  import  of  the  whole  vision  are  placed  in  their 
true  light.  The  people  after  their  return  from  exile,  mindful  of  the 
grievous  sins  of  their  fathers,  conscious  of  their  own  sinfulness,  and 
beholding  in  what  was  visible  only  the  first  and  faint  manifestations 
of  the  divine  mercy,  began  to  despair  of  the  same  ;  they  believed 
that  God  had  for  ever  rejected  the  high  priesthood,  which  he  had 
established  as  a  mediatorial  office  between  him  and  them.  This 
despair  of  the  mercy  of  God  must  be  attended  with  equally  injurious 
consequences  as  false  security.  Among  these,  remissness  in  the 
work  of  rebuilding  the  temple,  which  has  been  unduly  magnified  by 
many  interpreters,  was  only  one,  and  that  comparatively  unimpor- 
tant. Experience  shows,  that  all  fear  of  God  ceases  with  despair  of 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  as  the  Psalmist  of  old  expresses  the  close  con- 
nexion between  them  by  the  words,  "  For  with  thee  there  is  mercy 
and  plenteous  forgiveness,  that  thou  niayest  be  feared."  The 
prophet  now  represents  the  Lord,  in  a  glorious  manifestation  of 
himself,  not  indeed,  as  lulling  the  people  to  repose  in  their  sins  from 
a  false  trust  in  their  own  righteousness,  but  as  giving  them  the  assur- 
ance, that,  notwithstanding  the  greatness  of  their  sins,  he  would 
of  his  free  mercy  continue  as  before  the  office  of  high  priest,  and 
accept  his  mediation  until  the  time  should  hereafter  come,  when 
the  true  high  priest,  he,  of  whom  Joshua  was  only  a  type,  should 
appear  and  accomplish  a  perfect  and  perpetual  reconciliation. 

V.  2.  "  And  the  Lord  said  to  Satan;  The  Lord  rebuke  thee,  thou 
Satan,  the  Lord  rebuke  thee,  he  ivho  chooses  Jerusalem.  Is  not  this  a 
brand  rescued  from  the  Jire  1 "  Pelagianism,  which  is  manifested 
also  in  the  more  recent  interpretations  of  this  section,  appears  in  all 
its  extent  in  Jarchi's  paraphrase  of  the  verse  ;  "  Increpet  Jehova  te, 
ille  qui  elegit  Hierosolymam,  ut  ne  ingrediaris  coram  ipso  justtnn 
hunc  accusare ;  nonne  dignus  ille  et  purus,  ideo  ereptus  est  ex  igne 
incendii  ?  " 

It  is  not  on  the  worthiness  of  Joshua  and  the  people,  but  'on  his 
own  election  alone,  on  his  compassion  shown  in  the  restoration  of 
the  people  from  exile,  and  which  he  could  not  now  deny  without 
contradicting  himself,  that  the  Lord  grounds  his  rebuke  of  the  accu- 
sation of  Satan.  Calvin  :  **  Hie  prcedicat  deus  gratiam  suam,  qua 
usus  fuerat  erga  sacerdotem,  ut  statuant  Jidelesfore  Josuam  superio- 


30  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3. 

rem  suis  hostibus,  quia  deus  opus  suiim  non  deseret ;  semper  enim 
primis  ultima  respondent,  quantum  ad  gratiam  dei  ;  neque  fatigatur 
in  ipso  cursu  bcneficienticB." 

Still  better  Cyril  ;  ofxotov  yaq  wg  u  liyoi,  tvxov  TtEnXrjfi/AsXrjysv 
oyoXoyov/ASVCJS  6  'lagaijX,  y-ai  xaig  acilg  (piXoipoyiaig  iniaxrifiivog  oqaxai, 
nlijv  ixTSTixE  diy.ng  ov  f^sTgiag,  avixh]  rug  (}V[iq)OQag,  i^sanda&rj  fioXtg, 
wg  iy.  TivQog  dalog  rjiuliplsxtog  '  ovtoj  yaq  t«  f|  alxfiaXaaiag  uniixovlaaTO 
pXdfir],  ctqzi  xal  ^olig  rrjg  uvtjxiarov  TaXumwQlag  diiSqa  ti]v  cpXoya, 
navaai  dr]  ovv  iyxaXuv  Toig  rjXsrjfiivoig  '  S^iog  ydg  6  dixaiaP,  rig  6 
xttTaxqtvav ;  The  verb  l^U  ,  to  rebuke,  when  spoken  of  God,  who 
accomplishes  all  things  by  his  word,  receives  the  secondary  idea  of 
the  actual  suppression  and  defeating;  comp.  e.  g.  Ps.  106:  9,  Mai. 
3:11.  The  construction  with  3  is  explained  by  the  fact,  that  the 
passion  of  the  rebuker  rests  on  the  rebuked.  The  repetition  occurs 
in  order  to  subjoin  the  second  time  the  reason  ;  The  Lord  rebuke 
thee,  and,  indeed,  rebuke  thee  on  this  account,  &c.  Comp.  6  :  13. 
The  election  stands  opposed  to  the  temporary  rejection  during  the 
Babylonish  exile,  comp.  1 :  17.  It  had  continued  even  during  that 
period,  but  its  manifestation  had  been  prevented.  This  had  recom- 
menced with  the  return  from  exile,  (comp.  Rom.  11:1  sqq.,)  and 
no  machination  of  Satan  should  hinder  it  any  more.  The  expres- 
sion, "  a  brand  rescued  from  the  fire,"  is  taken  from  Amos  4  :  11, 
"  Ye  are  as  a  brand  rescued  from  the  fire,"  as  a  designation  of  a 
great  calamity,  which  nevertheless,  through  the  mercy  of  the  Lord, 
has  not  issued  in  a  total  destruction.  In  the  words,  "  the  Lord 
said  :  The  Lord  rebuke  thee,"  the  Lord  and  his  angel  are  distin- 
guished from  each  other,  and  the  latter  is  made  equal  with  the 
former  in  respect  to  the  divine  dignity  and  honor. 

V.  3.  "  And  Joshua  teas  clothed  in  unclean  garments  and  stood 
before  the  Lord."  According  to  several  interpreters,  (Eichhorn, 
Theiner,  &c.)  the  unclean  garments  signify  the  condition  of  the 
accused,  who,  among  the  Romans,  thus  appeared  before  a  tribunal, 
and  were  called  sordidati.  But  no  trace  of  such  a  custom  is  found 
among  the  Hebrews  ;  the  interpretation  rests  on  the  erroneous 
assumption,  that  standing  before  the  Lord  refers  to  a  judicial  trial  ; 
it  is  inconsistent  with  v.  4,  where,  by  the  removal  of  the  unclean 
garments,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  signified.  Hence  it  appears, 
that  the  only  true  interpretation  is  that,  which  makes  the  filthy 
garments,  according  to  the  frequent  usage  of  Scripture,  (e.  g.  Is. 
64  :  5 ;  "  We  are  all  as  an  unclean  thing,  and  all  our  righteous- 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3.  31 

nesses  as  a  filthy  garment."  Is.  4  :  4,  Prov.  30  :  12,)  signify  sins, 
with  reference  to  the  ordinance  which  required  the  high  priest  to 
appear  before  the  Lord  only  in  clean  garments.  The  high  priest, 
engaged  in  the  service  of  the  Lord,  appeared  before  him,  not  in  the 
purity  required  by  the  law,  but  laden  with  his  own  sins  and  those 
of  the  people.  Satan  sought  to  find  therein  the  surest  handle  for 
his  attack,  but  he  deceived  himself  The  Lord,  who  had  purified 
his  people,  yet  not  as  silver,  (Is.  48:  10,)  and  who  was  satisfied, 
though  the  furnace  of  affliction  had  removed  only  the  coarsest  dross 
of  sin,  and  had  produced  in  the  people  the  beginning  of  true  repent- 
ance, a  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness,  which  must  not  be 
stifled  by  severity,  but  nourished  by  being  met  with  kindness, 
imparted  to  them  of  his  grace,  what  they  did  not  possess  ;  he 
granted  to  the  high  priest,  and  in  him  to  the  people,  the  gift  of 
justification, 

V.  4.  "  A7id  he  answered  and  spake  to  those  tcho  stood  before 
him,  Take  atoay  from  him  the  unclean  garments ;  and  he  said  to 
Joshua,  Behold  I  tahe  away  from  thee  thy  sin,  and  they  shall  clothe 
thee  with  festive  garments."  As  the  filthy  garments  are  a  symbol 
of  sin,  so  the  putting  on  clean  and  splendid  garments  at  the  com- 
mand of  the  Lord,  signifies  the  imparting  of  forgiveness  and  justifi- 
cation. The  interpretation  of  Mark  is  to  be  rejected,  who  under- 
stands by  the  symbolic  action,  and  the  explanation  of  it  in  the 
address  to  Joshua,  not  justification,  but  sanctification.  It  is  only 
of  the  former  that  we  meet  with  the  phrase,  "  to  cause  sin  to  pass 
away,"  comp.  e.  g.  2  Sam.  12  :  13.  In  favor  of  forgiveness  of  sin 
also,  is  V.  10,  ("  I  blot  out  the  sin  of  the  land  in  one  day,")  where 
the  typical  justification  to  be  imparted  to  the  high  priest,  and  through 
him  to  the  people,  is  contrasted  with  the  full  and  perfect  justification 
to  be  imparted  through  the  Messiah.  A  similar  symbolic  represen- 
tation of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  found  in  Is.  6  :  6.  The  prophet, 
on  beholding  the  divine  holiness,  regards  himself  as  undone,  because 
he  is  unclean,  and  dwells  among  a  people  of  unclean  lips.  "  And 
then  flew  to  me  one  of  the  Seraphim,  and  in  his  hand  was  a  red- 
hot  stone  (fire,  a  symbol  of  purification),  —  and  he  caused  it  to 
touch  my  mouth,  and  said  ;  Behold  this  touches  thy  lips,  and  thine 
iniquity  is  done  away,  and  thy  sin  is  forgiven."  The  verb  njp  fre- 
quently stands  where  a  silent  address,  question,  or  entreaty  had 
gone  before,  and  is  then  erroneously  taken  by  those  interpreters, 
who  overlook  this,  in  the  sense,  "  to  begin  the  discourse  "  ;  comp.  e.  g. 


32  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3. 

Gesenius,  on  Isaiah  14  :  10,  where  it  ought  to  have  been  observed, 
that  upon  the  entrance  of  the  king  of  Babylon  into  Hades,  an 
address  to  the  shades  there  assembled  was  as  much  implied,  as  in 
the  silent  obeisance,  with  which  any  one  enters  into  a  company.* 
The  meaning,  "  to  begin  the  discourse,"  is  the  more  unsuitable 
here,  since  a  silent  address  and  supplication  of  Joshua  is  already 
intimated  by  the  immediately  preceding,  "  he  stood  before  the 
Lord."  As  often  as  the  high  priest  appeared  before  the  Lord  sup- 
plication for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  was  implied.  Those,  who  stand 
before  the  Lord,  or  before  his  angel,  are  his  higher  servants,  the 
angels;  comp.  Is.  chap.  6.  These,  in  like  manner,  as  in  the  pas- 
sage referred  to,  shall  adorn  his  inferior  servants  with  the  sign  of 
forgiveness,  which  he  only  can  grant.  The  infin.  tV^Sn  does  not 
stand  precisely  for  the  verbum  Jinitum;  nor  is  the  latter  to  be 
regarded  by  any  means  as  left  out.  The  infin.  designates  the  pure 
action,  without  the  person,  number,  or  mode  ;  comp.  Ewald,  p.  558. 
But  here  every  thing  depended  on  the  action  ;  the  determination 
of  the  actors  belonged  to  the  foregoing  address  to  them.  This  was 
the  more  properly  omitted  in  the  address  to  Joshua,  since  it  did  not 
appertain  to  the  substance,  but  to  the  drapery ;  as  his  attention  ought 
to  be  directed  solely  to  the  author  of  the  forgiveness,  not  to  the 
instruments  which  he  employed  as  its  symbol. 

V.  5.  "And  I  said;  Let  them  place  on  him,  moreover,  a  clean  tur- 
ban ;  and  they  placed  on  him  a  clean  turban,  and  put  on  him  garments, 
and  the  angel  of  the  Lord  was  still  present.^' —  The  prophet,  hitherto 
only  a  silent  spectator  and  narrator,  emboldened  by  love  towards 
his  people,  here  suddenly  comes  forward  as  one  of  the  actors.  Cal- 
vin :  "  Consilium  jjrophetcB,  sacerdotem  ita  fuisse  ornatum  splendidis 
vestibus,  rit  tamen  nondum  omni  ex  pai-te  constaret  dignitas ;  idea 
cupit  prophet  a  adjungi  etiam  mundam  cidarin,  vel  tiaram." 

Several  interpreters  suppose,  that,  by  the  bestowing  of  clean  gar- 
ments upon  the  high  priest,  the  forgiveness  of  his  sin,  so  far  as  he 
was  a  representative  of  the  people,  was  signified ;  by  the  putting  on 
of  the  clean  head-dress,   on  the   contrary,  the  confirmation  of  his 

*  The  true  interpretation  was  seen  by  Vitringa,  on  Zechariah  1  :  11 ;  "  Ad 
animum  vocari  velim,  in  omni  casu,  in  quo  vox  nj;^  vel  atroK^ivetr^m  usurpatur 
in  e.xordio  orationis  vel  narrationis  absque  antecedenfe  interrogatione,  semper 
interrogationem  tacitam  supponi,  perinde  ac  in  libr.  sacr.,  ubi  incipiunt  a 
copula  et,  licet  nihil  aliud  prfficesserit,  semper  supponitur  aliquid  antecedens, 
cum  quo  historia  vel  oratio  tacita  cogitatione  connectitur." 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3.  33 

office.  But  this  supposition  is  dearly  erroneous,  since  the  clean 
turban  must  symbolize  the  same  as  the  clean  garments.  Moreover, 
it  could  not  then  be  explained  why  the  putting  on  of  the  turban 
precedes  that  of  the  garments,  an  argument  which  cannot  be  set 
aside  by  the  ungrarnmatical  exj)!anation  of  Kimchi  and  others; 
"  they  placed  on  him  the  head-band  after  they  had  put  on  him  his 
garments,"  in  which  the  fut.  with  vav  eonvers.  is  changed  into  pre- 
cisely its  opposite,  a  pluperfect.  The  true  interpretation  is  rather 
as  follows.  The  prophet  designs  to  express  the  thought,  that  the 
Lord  imparts  to  the  h  yh  priest,  and  through  him  to  the  people,  entire 
purity  before  him.  This  tliought  he  thus  symbolizes.  The  Lord 
gives  merely  the  command  to  put  clean  garments  upon  Joshua. 
But,  before  this  was  accomplished,  the  prophet  prays  that  the  unclean 
part  of  the  clothing  of  the  high  priest,  of  which  nothing  had  been  said 
in  the  command,  might  also  be  removed.  His  prayer  is  heard,  and 
Joshua  is  now  clothed  anew  from  head  to  foot  (hence  the  putting  on 
of  the  turban  precedes).  The  expression,  "  and  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  stood,"  is  well  explained  by  Michaelis ;  "  f^ituin  tanquam  lierus 
imperans,  prohans  et  prmsentia  sua  ornans."  That  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  remains  present  during  the  whole  action,  and  does  not,  sat- 
isfied perhaps  with  the  command,  commit  the  execution  solely  to 
his  servants,  is  a  proof  of  his  high  esteem  and  his  tender  concern 
for  his  peop  e. 

V.  7.  "  And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  testified  to  Joshua  and  said. 

V.  8.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord ;  If  thou  ivitt  loalk  in  my  ways,  and 
keep  my  covvnandments,  thou  shalt  judge  my  house  and  guard  my 
courts,  and  I  will  give  thee  guides  among  these  my  servants."  The 
cleansing  of  the  high  priest  from  sin,  and  of  the  people  through 
him,  is  here  followed  by  his  confirmation  in  his  office,  including  also 
a  promise  for  the  people,  since  the  high  priest  was  the  mediator 
between  God  and  them,  and  since  the  people  could  not  be  rejected, 
so  long  as  the  high  priest  in  his  official  character  remained  accept- 
able to  God.  The  opposite  of  what  is  here  promised  had  taken 
place  in  the  times  of  the  Babylonish  exile;  comp.  Is.  43:  27,  28: 
"Thy  first  father,  (the  high  priest,  as  is  evident  from  the  parallelism, 
and  from  v.  28,)  has  s  ;ine<l,  and  thy  mediators  have  transgressed  ; 
therefore  I  profane  the  jrrinces  of  the  sanctuary  and  give  Jacob  to 
the  curse."  The  judging  or  ruling  of  the  house  of  God,  signifies 
supremam  curam  rerum  sacrarum.  The  guarding  of  the  courts  of 
the  Lord,  implies  the  obligation  resting  upon  the  high  priest  care- 

VOL.    II.  5 


34  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3. 

fully  to  keep  away  every  thing  idolatrous  and  ungodly,  first  from  the 
outward  temple,  comp.  2  Chron.  19:  11,  23:  18,  Jer.  29:  20,  then 
from  the  church  of  God,  of  which  the  temple  was  the  central  point. 
Here  this  appears,  not  as  a  duty,  but  as  a  reward,  inasmuch  as 
activity  in  promoting  the  kingdom  of  God  is  the  highest  honor  and 
mercy  which  God  can  grant  to  a  sinful  mortal.  In  the  words,  "  I 
give  thee  guides  among  those  wlio  stand  there,"  the  Lord  promises 
to  his  inferior  the  aid  of  his  higher  servants.  One  can  scarcely  con- 
ceive, how  this  simple  sentence  should  have  been  so  frequently 
misunderstood.  DoSriD  is  a  Chaldee  form  of  a  participle  in  Hiph. 
instead  of  the  usual  D'D'SiD,  Hiph.  in  the  sense  to  guide,  e.  g.  Is. 
42  :  16,  "  I  lead  the  blind  by  a  way  which  they  know  not."  The 
explanation  of  Michaelis  (Suppl.  557,  558,)  "  Dabo  tibi  ministerhim 
intei'  cos,  qui  hie  slant,  aiigdos  milii  luinistr antes,"  in  which  CD^riD 
is  taken  as  plural  of  the  noun  "jSriD,  is  liable  to  the  objection,  that 
the  noun  never  occurs  in  the  sense  munus  here  attributed  to  it;  and, 
besides,  the  reception  of  an  earthly  servant  of  God  into  the  heavenly 
choir  is  an  idea  foreign  to  the  whole  Old  Testament.  We  may 
be  permitted  to  pass  over  other  interpretations  still  more  untenable. 

V.  8.  "  Yet  hear,  O  Joshua,  high  priest,  thou  and  thy  compan- 
ions, who  sit  before  thee  ;  for  ye  are  types ;  for  behold!  I  bring 
my  servant  Branch."  The  connexion  with  the  foregoing  is  thus 
aptly  given  by  Kimchi ;  "  Dicit,  quamvis  adducam  nunc  vobis  hanc 
salutcm,  adhuc  adducam  vobis  saluietn  majorem,  quatn  hanc,  tempore, 
quo  adducam  servum  meum  Zemach."  We  here,  in  the  first  place, 
institute  an  inquiry  respecting  the  word  n£)1D,  It  is  commonly  sup- 
posed, that  the  original  meaning  of  this  word  is  demonstratin,  osten- 
sio;  we,  on  the  contrary,  affirm  it  to  be  that  of  astonishntnt  and 
wonder,  and,  indeed,  for  the  following  reasons.   1.  It  is  favored  by  the 

Arabic  ^*i[ ,  ri^.N,  first,  every  thing  that  excites  wonder,  , "^C, 

then  specially  a  calamity,  which  by  its  greatness  awakens  wonder 
and  astonishment,  (comp.  Is.  52:  14,)  jj^aAIo  (Schultens  on  Job, 
p.  423)  ;  neither  of  these  senses  can  be  derived,  if  dcmonstratio  is 
assumed  as  the  ground  meaning.  The  assertion  of  Gesenius  (Thes. 
s,  v.  n2X)  that  (3  in  ^jf  is  not  radical,  is  erroneous.     He  grounds 

it  on  the  combination  of  the  ^_jf  with  g_i]  calamitas,  pernicies 
noxa,  from  the  root  ,ji,jf.     But  the  two  words  have  nothing  what- 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3.  35 

ever  in  common.  The  word  ^^f  of  itself,  no  more  signifies 
calamity,  than  n3ir3.  Ps.  71  :  7.  If  this  had  been  assumed  as  the 
original  meaning,  how  could  that  of  tconder  flow  from  it  ?  2.  Even 
the  Hebrew  usage  requires  the  original  meaning  of  astonishment 
and  wonder.  Since  it  is  only  from  this,  that  all  the  senses  of  the 
word  can  be  derived,  particularly  those  in  Ps.  71  :  7.  The  frequent 
combination  of  n3in  with  m'N,  far  from  proving,  that  both  words 
are  entirely  synonymous  rather  proves  the  contrary;  it  shows,  that 
both  must  be  designations  of  the  same  thing  from  different  points  of 
view,  and  here,  as  is  also  shown  by  the  comparison  of  other  lan- 
guages {jsQug  and  aij/j-Hov,  prodigium  and  signum)  scarcely  any  other 
reference  is  possible,  than  the  double  one,  partly  to  the  subjective 
perception,  partly  to  the  objective  import  of  a  thing.  While  the 
one  narrator  rendered  prominent  this,  the  other  that  relation,  it 
could  happen,  that  the  miracle  performed  in  favor  of  Hezekiah 
might  be  called  in  the  book  of  Kings  nix,  in  Chronicles  nsiD ;  from 
which  it  has  been  erroneously  concluded,  that  both  words  must  be 
entirely  synonymous.  But  nsiD  is  used  especially  of  a  thmg  or  a 
person,  which  attracts  to  itself  surprise  and  attention,  because  it 
typifies  and  predicts  one  that  is  future.  This  special  meaning  is 
found  in  four  passages  besides  this.  Is.  8  :  18,  calls  his  sons,  on 
account  of  the  names  prophetic  of  salvation,  which  the  Lord  had 
given  to  them,  and  thereby  appointed  them  as  types  of  the  coming 
deliverance,  signs  and  wonders  (mnix  and  D"'n3lo)  in  Israel.  Ac- 
cording to  Is.  20  :  3,  the  prophet,  as  a  type  of  the  Egyptian  people, 
goes  naked  three  years  for  a  sign  and  wonder  upon  Egypt.  Ez. 
12  :  6,  the  Lord  says  to  the  prophet,  after  he  has  commissioned  him 
to  typify  by  his  actions  the  future  destinies  of  Israel,  "  For  I  have 
set  thee  as  a  wonder  for  the  house  of  Israel ;  "  comp.  v.  11,  "  Say, 
I  am  your  wonder,  as  I  have  done,  so  shall  ye  do  ;  ye  shall  go  into 
captivity."  Ez.  24,  the  prophet's  wife  dies  ;  in  obedience  to  the 
command  of  the  Lord,  he  durst  not  utter  lamentations  over  her  ; 
the  attention  of  the  people  is  thereby  excited  to  the  highest  pitch, 
they  suspect  that  there  is  a  deeper  reason  for  the  conduct  of  the 
prophet.  They  receive  from  the  Lord  the  answer,  "  Ezekiel  shall 
be  to  you  for  a  wonder ;  as  all  that  he  has  done,  ye  shall  do,"  (v. 
24,  comp.  V.  27.)  In  all  these  passages  nam  corresponds  to  ti'tto? 
luv  fxtllovxmv,  with  this  difference  only,  that  the  latter  exhibits 
merely  the  objective  meaning  of  the  thing,  without  regard  to  the 


36  ZECHARIAH   Chap.  3. 

subjective  sensation  produced  by  it.  Tliis  was  seen  by  Cocceius : 
"  Viri  portenti  sunt  illi,  in  quihus  minim  aUquid,vcl  insolitumjit, 
quo  ezcitentur  homines  ad  cogitandum  de  protuissionibus  meis." 

We  now  proceed  to  the  illustration  of  particulars.  By  the  com- 
panions of  Joshua,  who,  with  him,  are  summoned  to  attend,  are  to 
be  understood  his  colleagues,  the  priests  of  an  inferior  rank.  This 
appears,  1.  from  the  object  of  the  whole  prophecy.  Joshua  is  spoken 
of  throughout,  not  as  a  private  person,  but  as  a  high  priest.  He 
appears  as  occupied  with  the  functions  of  his  office ;  he  is  addressed 
even  in  this  verse  emphatically  as  a  high  priest.  When,  therefore, 
his  companions  are  here  spoken  of,  they  cannot  be  such  as  were 
connected  with  him  in  any  other  relation,  but  only  his  colleagues 
in  the  priestly  office.  2.  The  addition,  "who  sit  before  thee," 
leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  This  designates,  not,  as  Michaelis 
erroneously  supposes,  the  relation  of  the  teacher  to  his  pupils,  but 
rather  that  of  a  president  in  a  college  to  his  associates,  and,  gener- 
ally, that  of  a  person  of  higher  rank  to  his  inferiors;  comp.  Ezek. 
8:  1.  Num.  3 :  4,  1  Sam.  3:  1.  The  verb  T\i;'  is  the  terminus 
technicus,  for  designating  the  sessions  of  public  officers,  comp.  e.  g. 
Exod.  18 :  13.  Such  sessions  of  the  priests,  when  the  high  priest 
presided,  were  not  unfrequent,  comp.  Lightfoot,  on  Mat.  26  :  3. 
Lond.  p.  517.  The  expression  taken  from  these  sessions  was  then 
in  a  general  way  transferred  to  the  relation  of  the  high  priest  to  the 
priests  as  his  subordinates.  As  here  the  priests  are  designated  as 
companions  of  the  high  priest,  so  are  they,  Ez.  3  :  2,  as  his  breth- 
ren ;  "  then  stood  up  Joshua  and  his  brethren  the  priests,  and 
Zerubbabel  and  his  brethren."  ^2,  which  has  been  variously  misun- 
derstood, gives  the  reason  why  Joshua  and  his  companions  are  sum- 
moned to  attend.  They  must  hear  the  promise  of  the  Messiah  with 
peculiar  attention,  because  as  his  types  they  stand  to  him  in  a  more 
intimate  relation,  because  their  order  will  be  glorified  through  him, 
since  he  perfectly  realizes  the  idea  of  it.  Much  difficulty  has  been 
occasioned  to  the  interpreters  by  nnn,  inasmuch  as  it  appears  to 
refer  exclusively  to  the  companions  of  Joshua,  while  he  himself,  as 
the  head,  most  completely  typified  the  Messiah.  This  difficulty  is 
removed  by  the  remark,  that  the  prophet  makes  a  sudden  transition 
from  the  second  person  to  the  third,  as  if  he  had  said,  "  Joshua  and 
his  companions  should  hear ;  for  they  are,"  &-c.  This  is  evident 
from  v.  9,  where  the  discourse  is  concerning  Joshua  in  the  third 
person.     Examples  of  a  similar  transition  are  very  frequent,  comp. 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3.  37 

e.  g.  Zeph.  2:  12,  "  also  ye  Cushites,  slain  of  my  sword  are  thei/  " 
(an).  Ezek.  28  :  22,  "  Behold,  I  come  upon  thee,  Sidon,  and 
glorify  myself  in  thee,  and  they  shall  experience,  that  I  am  the 
Lord,  when  I  in  her,"  &lc.  Jer.  7  :  4.  The  second  "3  shows  the 
reason,  wherefore  Joshua  and  his  colleagues  are  r\3lD  ''V/}i{.  This 
lies  in  the  appearing  of  the  antitype.  For  if  this  is  not  real,  then  the 
type  also  ceases.  This  antitype,  the  Messiah,  is  designated  by  a 
twofold  appellation.  First,  my  servant,  as  Is.  42  :  1,  49  :  3,  5,  50  ; 
10,  52:  13,  53:  11,  Ezek.  34:  23,  24.  Then  HDV,  sprout.  This 
latter  name  designates  the  early  obscurity  of  the  Messiah  ;  he  will 
not  resemble  a  proud  tree,  but  a  sprout,  which  gradually  grows  up 
and  becomes  a  tree.  This  appears  from  the  comparison  of  the  par- 
allel passages  already  collected,  p.  5,  &c.  Among  these,  Zecha- 
riah,  to  judge  according  to  his  relation  to  these  prophets  elsewhere, 
in  all  probability  had  before  his  eyes  especially  those  of  Jeremiah 
(23:  5,  33:  15.)  and  Ezekiel.  It  is  unnecessary  to  suppose,  with 
several  interpreters,  that  sprout  here  stands  for  sprout  of  David. 
The  expression  rather  designates,  in  general,  the  early  obscurity  of 
the  Messiah,  not  as  Is.  11  :  1,  especially  his  origin  from  the  fallen 
family  of  David,  which  is  indeed  a  necessary  consequence  of  the 
former.  The  assertion  of  Q,uenstedt  is  erroneous;  "  gerinen  est 
nomen  orighiis  etjiliationis,  — semper  rcspectumhahet  ad  id,  cvjus  est 
gertnen."  In  Is.  53 :  2,  also,  without  respect  to  his  descent,  in  order 
to  designate  his  original  obscurity,  the  Messiah  is  called  a  tender 
shoot,  pJV  in  opposition  to  a  stately  tree.  Calvin  :  "  comparat  Chris- 
tum surculo,  quia  de  nihilo,  ut  ita  dicam  oriri  visits  est,  propte- 
rea  quod  principium  ejus  conteinptibile  fuit.  Quid  enim  obt'inuit 
ezcelleniiis  Christus  in  mundo,  quum  natus  est,  quomudo  auspicatus 
est  regnum  suum?  et  quomodo  initiatus  est  suo  sacerdotio  1  "  The 
Seventy  render  HDi'  by  avuToXi],  which,  however,  they  have  not 
employed,  as  several  interpreters  erroneously  suppose,  in  the  sense 
of  "  a  rising  light,"  but,  as  Jerome,  on  chap.  6 :  12,  rightly  per- 
ceived, in  that  of  a  sprout.  In  this  sense  they  employ  uvcno^ 
(tov  uygov,)  Ez.  16 :  7,  17  :  10 ;  the  verb  nov  is  alternately  rendered 
by  them  uvuziXlsiv,  i^araTsXlsiv,  cpvsiv,  aya<pvatvi  and  ^XaaxdvHv,  Jer. 
33  :  15.  They  translate  nn:f  by  ^Xaazog,  as  does  Symm.  also,  23  : 
5,  by  ^kdaTTjfia,  (comp.  Mark  excrcitt.  misc.,  p.  160  sq.)  That  by 
"  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  Branch,"  the  Messiah  was  intended,  was 
the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  older  Jews.  The  Chaldee  paraphrases 
"'Sann  i<n"'kyn  naj'  n^  'n'n  njx  nh,  "  behold  I  bring  my  servant  the 


38  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3. 

Messiah,  who  will  be  revealed."  In  Echa  Rabbati,  Branch  is  cited 
among  the  names  of  the  Messiah.  In  the  Christian  church  also, 
this  view  was  always  predominant.  Some  of  the  fathers,  nevertheless, 
(Theodoret  on  the  passage,  and  probably,  so  far  as  can  be  ascer- 
tained from  his  obscure  expressions,  Eusebius,  demonstr.  1.  4,  c.  70,) 
found  here  Zerubbabel  led  astray  by  a  misapprehension  of  the  words, 
"  he  will  build  my  temple,"  in  the  parallel  passage,  chap.  6  :  13.  For 
another  reason,  an  earnest  desire  to  set  aside,  as  much  as  possible,  ref- 
erences to  the  Messiah,  this  interpretation  has  found  favor  with  some 
later  Jewish  critics,  and  with  Grotius.  Its  refutation  need  not 
detain  us  long.  A  still  stronger  objection  than  that  which  is  com- 
monly and  justly  urged  against  it,  —  that  nnif  is  a  constant  desig- 
nation of  the  Messiah,  and  as  such,  occurs  particularly  in  Jeremiah, 
the  exemplar  of  Zechariah  ;  that  here  a  future  person  is  promised, 
while  Zerubbabel  had  already  long  been  active  in  the  new  colony, 
—  is,  that  by  it  the  whole  object  of  the  prophecy  is  defeated.  Why 
does  Zerubbabel  appear  in  a  prophecy  which  is  occupied  through- 
out with  the  priesthood  ?  How  can  his  appearing  be  announced 
especially  to  them,  as  peculiarly  honorable  and  joyful  for  them,  how 
can  it  be  contrasted  as  a  higher  blessing  with  the  inferior  one,  the 
divine  confirmation  of  their  office  granted  to  them  before?  In  what 
relation  were  the  priests  types  of  Zerubbabel  ?  In  what  sense  could 
the  removal  of  the  sins  of  the  land  in  one  day,  (comp.  v.  9,)  be 
attributed  to  him  ?  It  now  only  remains  to  answer  the  question,  in 
what  sense  the  priests  are  here  called  types  of  the  Messiah.  It  is 
impossible  it  should  be  any  thing  else  than  what  constitutes  the 
characteristic  of  their  office.  For  that  regard  was  had  to  the  office, 
but  not  the  person  of  Joshua,  is  evident  from  the  circumstance  that 
his  colleagues  were  associated  with  him.  The  characteristic  of  the 
priestly  office  consisted,  however,  in  the  mediation  between  God 
and  the  people,  and  this  in  accordance  with  the  circumstances  of 
the  latter,  was  exercised  chiefly  in  procuring  forgiveness  of  sins  by 
sacrifice  and  intercession.  The  Messiah,  therefore,  can  be  repre- 
sented as  the  antitype  of  the  priesthood  only  so  far  as  he  should 
perfectly  accomplish  the  mediation  and  deliverance  from  sin,  which 
was  but  imperfectly  accomplished  by  it.  This  is  further  confirmed 
by  the  following  arguments.  1.  We  have  already  seen,  that  the 
people,  troubled  concerning  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  are  con- 
soled in  what  precedes  by  the  assurance,  that,  notwithstanding  their 
transgressions,  the  Lord  would  not  reject  the  priesthood.     When, 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3.  39 

therefore,  hitherto  the  priesthood  has  been  solely  considered  only 
in  reference  to  the  deliverance  of  the  people  from  sin,  and  when 
Joi^hua  has  appeared  as  occupied  in  procuring  it,  how  can  it  be 
thought  otherwise,  than  that  the  antitypical  high  priest  here  promis- 
ed is  contrasted  with  the  typical,  only  in  reference  to  the  perfect 
deliverance  from  sin  to  be  effected  through  him?  2.  The  Lord  prom- 
ises, V.  9,  expressly,  that  he  will  remove  the  sins  of  the  whole  land 
through  his  servant.  3.  Forgiveness  of  sin  is  a  constant  characteris- 
tic mark  of  the  Messianic  time,  (comp.  Vol  1,  p.  199.)  Zechatiah, 
chap.  13  :  1,  exhibits,  as  the  chief  blessing  to  be  imparted  to  those 
who  should  look  upon  him  who  was  pierced,  that  a  fountain  should 
be  opened  for  them  for  all  impurities  and  sins.  But  this  passage 
derives  the  clearest  light  from  Is.  53,  where  the  Messiah  is  repre- 
sented, at  the  same  time,  as  the  true  sacrifice,  and  as  the  true  high 
priest.  As  the  latter,  he  sprinkles  many  nations  (52  :  15)  ;  he 
presents  a  sin  offering  (53  :  10)  ;  he  makes  intercession  for  sinners, 
(v.  12.)  The  only  difference  between  the  two  passages  is,  that 
here  the  method  is,  not  as  it  is  there,  pointed  out,  whereby  the  true 
high  priest  shall  effect  the  removal  of  sin.  Finally,  the  Messiah 
appears  as  a  high  priest  also  in  Ps.  110. 

V.  9.  "  I^or  behold,  the  stone,  which  I  have  laid  before  Joshua, 
upon  this  one  stone  shall  seven  eyes  be  directed ;  behold,  I  loill  hew 
it  out  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts  and  remove  the  sin  of  the  land  in 
one  day."  ^2  shows,  that  this  verse  must  be  the  reason  of  the 
proposition  immediately  before;  '*  for  I  bring  my  servant.  Branch," 
in  like  manner  as  the  first  ';! ,  in  v.  S,  and  the  second,  must  be 
respectively  that  of  "  hear,"  and  "  they  are  types."  Appearances 
were  altogether  against  the  manifestation  of  the  Messiah  ;  the  mis- 
erable condition  of  the  new  colony  seemed  to  cut  off  all  prospect  of 
the.  fulfilment  of  such  splendid  promises,  comp.  4  :  10.  The  Lord, 
therefore,  the  Almighty  (Jehovah  of  Hosts),  by  pointing  to  his  lively 
concern  for  the  best  good  of  the  Theocracy,  as  the  ground  of  these 
blessings,  withdraws  the  attention  from  the  outward  appearance. 
That  the  seven  eyes  must  not  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  stone, 
but  as  directed  to  it,  scarcely  needs  a  proof,  as  is  generally  con- 
fessed by  modern  interpreters.  It  is  sufficient  even  to  refer  to  chap. 
4:10,  where  the  seven  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  designated  as  those, 
which  look  on  the  plummet  in  the  hand  of  Zerubbabel,  and  are  cited 
as  having  been  already  mentioned  in  what  had  preceded.  The  eye 
of  God  is  not  seldom  employed  to  designate  the  Divine  Providence. 


40  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  3. 

It  is,  however,  peculiar  to  Zechariah,  that  he  designates  the  most 
special  concern  of  God  for  tlie  stone  by  the  resting  of  his  seven  eyes 
upon  it.  It  appears,  that  he  had  here  in  view  the  symbolic  repre 
sentations  of  the  Babylonians  or  Persians.  That  similar  figurative 
desiiinations  were  employed,  particularly  by  the  Persians,  appears 
from  the  fact,  that  certain  confidential  servants  of  the  king  were 
called  6(p9idfiol  ftaoiliwg  ;  comp.  Suidas  and  Hesychius  s.  v.,  Brisson. 
de  reg.  Pers.  princ.  p.  2C4  sq. ;  a  designation  probably  borrowed 
from  their  theology,  as  the  whole  Persian  kingdom  was  supposed  to 
be  a  visible  representation  of  the  heavenly  kingdom  of  Ormuz,  of 
whom  the  king  was  the  representative,  (comp.  Beitrage  1,  p. 
125  seq.)  It  is  further  to  be  inquired,  what  is  meant  by  the  stone, 
to  which  the  seven  eyes  are  directed.  It  is  almost  unanimously 
supposed  by  the  older  interpreters  to  be  the  Messiah.  But  this  is 
contradicted  by  "  which  1  have  laid  before  Joshua,"  whereby  the 
stone  appears  as  something  already  present  only  to  be  ornamented 
hereafter,  as  also  by,  "  I  will  grave  it."  Others  suppose  it  to  be  the 
foundation  stone  of  the  temple  ;  but  we  do  not  perceive  how  this 
was  to  be  graved.  The  correct  view  is  rather,  that  the  unhewn 
stone,  to  be  polished  and  graven  by  the  Lord,  is  an  image  of  the 
Theocracy,  and  its  seat,  the  temple,  signifying  its  present  low  condi- 
tion, and  its  future  glorification  by  the  Lord.  The  stone  is  then 
with  entire  propriety  described  as  lying  before  Joshua,  since,  as  had 
been  said,  v.  7,  the  chief  oversight  of  the  Theocracy,  at  that  time, 
devolved  upon  him.  The  polishing  and  graving  of  the  rough,  pre- 
cious stone,  (comp.  Exod.  28:  9,  11,  21,  36,  39,  30,)  consists 
preeminently  in  the  sending  of  the  Messiah,  though  without  exclud- 
ing the  earlier  mercies  of  God.  According  to  the  cotemporary 
prophecy  of  Haggai,  chap.  2  :  7-10,  the  second  temple  was  to  be 
filled  with  glory,  and  made  more  illustrious  than  the  first,  through 
him.  p'nmD  nng,  to  open  openings,  to  grave.  The  verb  ty^D,  else- 
where intrans.  rece.de.re,  here  transitive.  This  Ian  ',  Judea,  which, 
although  the  deliverance  from  sin  to  be  effected  by  the  Messiah 
should  extend  further,  even  over  the  whole  heathen  world,  is  here 
alone  mentioned,  because  in  this  whole  prediction  the  prophet  aims 
only  to  comfort  the  troubled  minds  of  his  people.  The  expression, 
"  in  one  day,"  where  day  stands  for  the  shortest  portion  of  time, 
implies,  that  the  ren)oval  of  sin,  to  be  eflFected  by  the  Messiah,  would 
not  be  continually  repeated,  like  that  accomplished  by  the  typical 
priesthood,  but  completed  in  a  single  action. 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  4.  41 

V.  10.  "  At  that  time  ye  shall  call  one  to  another,  to  the  vine  and 
to  the  fig  tree  !  "  So  translates  correctly  De  Dieu,  Crit.  Sacr.  More 
feebly  others  ;  "  Ye  shall  invite  one  another  under."  The  words 
contain  an  image  of  the  rest,  peace,  and  prosperity,  ("  summa  et  Ice- 
tissima  tranquillitas  in  ama^na  omnium  copia,"  De  Dieu,)  which 
would  be  a  consequence  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  procured  by  the 
Messiah. 


5.     The  Candlestick  ivith  the  Two  Olive  Trees. 
Chap.   4. 

Between  this  and  the  preceding  vision  a  pause  is  to  be  supposed. 
The  angelus  interpres  had  withdrawn  for  a  time  from  the  -prophet, 
and  the  latter,  his  ecstasy  having  ceased,  had  recovered  his  ordi- 
nary condition  of  mind.  Jerome  :  "  Quoiiescunque  humana  fra- 
gilitas  sua:  relinquitur  imhecillitati,  deus  a  nobis  et  angelorum  ejus 
auxilium  abire  credendttm  est."  "  And  the  angel  who  conversed 
with  me,"  —  it  is  said,  v.  1,  —  "  returned  and  awoke  me,  as  a  man 
who  is  awakened  from  sleep."  We  have  here  the  deepest  desig- 
nation of  the  condition  of  the  prophets  while  prophesying  (comp. 
Vol.  I.  p.  217),  in  comparison  with  their  ordinary  state.  They 
stand  related  to  each  other  as  sleep  to  being  awake.  The  ordi- 
nary condition,  in  which,  given  up  to  sensible  impressions,  we  are 
unable  to  raise  the  spiritual  eye  to  the  contemplation  of  what  is 
divine,  is  that  of  spiritual  sleep  ;  the  ecstasy  on  the  contrary,  when 
the  senses  are  at  rest,  and  the  whole  of  our  conscious  agency  ceases, 
and  the  images  of  divine  things  are  represented  in  the  soul  as  in  a 
pure  and  smooth  mirror,  is  a  state  of  spiritual  watchfulness.  This 
sense,  which  is  the  only  true  one,  Cyril  alone  among  all  the  inter- 
preters has  perceived,  who  remarks  :  "  Our  condition,  in  compari- 
son with  that  of  the  angels,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  state  of  sleep." 
The  rest,  as  Theodoret,  Jerome,  Vitringa,  have  been  led  astray  by 
their  erroneous  preconceived  opinions  respecting  the  condition  of 
the  prophets  while  prophesying.  (Comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  217.)  They  sup- 
pose the  prophet  was  so  absorbed  in  the  contemplation  of  the  vision, 
chap.  3,  as  to  need  the  admonition  of  the  angelus  interpres  to  attend 
to  the  new  scene  which  presented  itself.  But  this  supposition  is 
untenable,  since  it  leaves  out  of  view,  "  and  the  angel  returned,"^ 
and  indeed  makes  his  going  away  to  be  without  meaning. 

VOL.    II.  (3 


48  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  4. 

The  new  vision,  which  now  presents  itself  to  the  prophet  is  as 
follows  ;  he  sees  a  candlestick  of  pure  gold,  and  on  it  an  oil  vessel, 
out  of  which  the  oil  flows  down  into  each  of  the  seven  lamps  of  the 
candlestick  through  seven  tubes.  On  both  sides  of  the  candlestick, 
and  rising  above,  stand  two  olive  trees.  The  angeliis  interprcs  gives 
the  meaning  of  this  emblem,  after  he  has  reminded  the  prophet  of 
his  human  weakness,  and  called  his  attention  to  the  deep  import  of 
the  vision  by  the  inquiry  :  "  Knowest  thou  not  what  this  imports  ?  " 
V.  6,  7,  also  in  the  expression,  "  This  vision  (so  far  as  it  was  pro- 
phetical) is  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  Zerubbabel ;  not  by  might  and 
not  by  power,  but  by  my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  Who  art 
thou,  thou  great  mountain  before  Zerubbabel  ?  Become  a  plain  1  He 
brings  forth  the  top  stone  (so  is  nU'X-in  pNH  to  be  translated,  not, 
with  most  interpreters,  the  foundation  stone,  as  this  had  already 
been  laid  many  years  before,  comp.  also  v.  9,  "  his  hands  have 
founded  this  house,  and  his  hands  will  also  complete  it,")  *  with  the 
shouting  (of  the  angels),  '  Grace,  grace  unto  it  ! '  "  Accordingly 
this  is  the  import  of  the  vision  ;  the  affairs  of  the  Theocracy  will  not 
be  promoted  by  human  power,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God  alone,  who 
animates,  protects,  sustains  it.  The  immediate  object  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  which  this  general  truth,  at  all  times  valid  for  the 
church  of  God,  was  here  symbolized,  was,  to  impart  consolation  to 
the  desponding  people  and  their  head,  and,  thereby,  energy  for  a 
zealous  prosecution  of  the  erection  of  the  temple.  For  of  what 
consequence  was  it,  if  whole  mountains  of  difficulties  opposed  this 
work,  since  it  did  not  depend  on  hun)an  power,  which  indeed  was 
not  at  hand,  but  the  Lord  had  taken  it  wholly  upon  himself?  In 
this  interpretation  what  is  general  and  what  is  special  appear  in 
their  true  relation  to  each  other,  which  has  been  misunderstood  by 
most  interpreters.  Let  us  now  see  how  the  symbol  and  its  signifi- 
cation are  related  to  each  other.  The  candlestick  is  an  image  of 
the  Theocracy  ;  the  iertium  compa?-ationis  the  light,  which  both  pos- 
sess and  radiate  into  the  surrounding  darkness,  comp.  Apoc  1  :  20 ; 
"  The  seven  candlesticks  are  seven  churches  ;  "  Luke  12  :  5,  the 
parable  of  the  wise  and  foolish  virgins,  &c.     That  the  candlestick 


*  Unless  one  chooses,  which  appears  to  the  author  to  be  better,  "  he  has 
brought  forth  the  ground  stone."  But  if,  according  to  the  current  interpreta- 
tion, the  prseter  is  taken  as  the  prcBt.  propheticum,  the  explanation  given  in  the 
text  is  indispensable. 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  4.  43 

is  entirely  of  the  most  precious  metal,  of  gold,  signifies  the  excel- 
lency of  the  church  of  God.  The  two  olive  trees  symbolize  the 
Spirit  of  God  ;  the  oil,  which  flows  from  them  into  the  lamps  and 
illuminates  them,  and  causes  them  to  give  light,  his  influences  on 
the  church  of  God.  The  abundance  of  tubes,  seven  for  each  of  the 
seven  lamps,  intimates  the  manifold  ways  in  which  the  mercy  of 
God  flows  to  his  church,  as  well  as  its  exuberance. 

It  is  commonly  supposed  that  the  prophet  in  the  representation  of 
the  symbol  has  omitted  through  negligence,  and  afterwards  intro- 
duces, V.  11  sqq.,  one  circumstance,  viz.  that  in  the  two  olive  trees 
were  two  boughs  full  of  olives,  which,  lying  in  two  presses,  (so  is 
m'"))"^JX  in  V.  12,  to  be  explairted,  as  is  evident,  among  other  reasons, 
from  T5,  which  cannot  possibly  be  explained  as  it  has  been  by 
many  interpreters,  by  "  near  by,")  conducted  the  oil  to  the  candle- 
stick. But  this  omission  was  rather  from  design.  The  mention  of 
this  special  circumstance  would  have  weakened  the  impression  of 
the  symbol  as  a  whole,  and  have  prevented  the  insight  into  its  chief 
meaning.  The  prophet,  therefore,  does  not  direct  the  attention  to 
this  special  circumstance,  until  he  has  learned  and  explained  the 
import  of  the  symbol  as  a  whole.  He  asks,  in  the  first  place,  v.  11, 
"  What  are  these  iico  olive  trees  ?  "  This  question  cannot  relate  gen- 
erally to  the  import  of  the  olive  trees,  for  the  prophet  has  already  been 
informed  that  they  symbolize  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  rather  concerns 
only  the  duality  of  the  olive  trees.  But  before  the  prophet  receives 
the  answer  of  the  angel,  he  perceives  that  the  duality  of  the  olive 
trees  is  aot  of  itself  significant,  that  it  has  rather  been  chosen  merely 
on  account  of  the  significancy  of  the  duality  of  the  boughs.  He 
asks,  therefore,  without  waiting  for  the  answer,  v.  12,  correcting 
himself,  anew,  "  What  the  two  ears  (Kimchi  :  Comparat  ramos  olea- 
rum  cum  spicis,  quod  sicut  hcB  granis,  sic  iUi  olivis  pleni  essent)  of 
the  olive  trees,  which  are  in  the  two  golden  presses,  import  ?  "  And 
that  he  receives  from  the  angclus  interpres  an  answer  only  to  this 
question,  and  not  to  the  former,  implies  that  the  duality  of  the  olive 
trees  is  not  of  itself  significant.  He  receives  for  answer,  "  They 
are  the  two  children  of  oil,  which  stand  before  the  Lord  of  the  whole 
earth."  lOi^  with  'li',  properly  "  to  stand  over  any  one,"  here  signi- 
fies rendering  service  ;  near  the  Lord,  who  sits,  stand  the  servants, 
corap.  Is.  6:  1,  2,  "  The  Lord  sat  on  a  high  throne.  —  Seraphim 
stood  over  him,"  at  his  side,  so  that  they  appeared  above  him  as  he 
sat.     The  question  now  arises,  who  are  the  two  children  of  oil,  the 


4|4  ZECHARIAH  5:  1-4. 

servants  of  the  Lord,  ««t  t^ox^v.  Several  interpreters  suppose  them 
to  be  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua.  But  that  these,  considered  as  indi- 
viduals, could  not  be  meant,  is  evident,  because  the  supplying  of 
the  candlestick  with  oil,  the  imparting  of  the  divine  mercy  in  the 
Theocracy,  cannot  be  connected  with  the  existence  of  two  frail  and 
dying  men.  Others,  therefore,  have  rightly  supposed,  that  by  the 
two  children  of  oil,  the  two  whole  orders  were  designated,  which 
in  the  Theocracy  eminently  served  as  instruments  of  the  divine 
mercy,  the  sacerdotal  and  the  regal,  or,  generally,  that  of  the  civil 
magistrates.  These  alone  could  be  called  children  of  oil,  in  order 
to  designate  the  official  favor  bestowed  upon  them  by  God,  which 
was  symbolically  represented  by  anointing.  Comp.  in  reference  to 
the  high  priest,  the  important  parallel  passage,  Levit.  21  :  12.  That 
this  was  no  longer  practised  in  the  case  of  the  civil  magistrates  after 
the  exile,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  ;  they  were  anointed  in  their  pre- 
decessors, and  the  grace  suited  to  their  office,  the  thing  expressed  by 
the  symbol,  was  continued  to  them.  To  assure  to  them  and  the 
high  priests  this  favor,  and  through  this  assurance  to  console  and 
gladden  the  people,  who  believed  themselves  forsaken  of  God,  is 
precisely  the  object  of  the  present  symbolic  representation.  The 
spiritual  and  the  civil  government  shall  continue,  as  in  the  former 
Theocracy,  to  be  the  medium  through  which  the  Lord  imparts  his 
gracious  gifts  to  his  church.  This  promise  in  the  highest  and  full- 
est sense  was  accomplished  in  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  who, 
according  to  chap.  G,  should  combine  both  offices,  that  of  a  King 
and  High  Priest  in  his  person,  whom  the  prophet  represents,  chap.  3, 
especially  as  a  High  Priest,  chap.  9,  as  a  King,  and  through  whom 
the  oil  of  the  divine  favor,  immeasurably  richer  than  that  imparted 
through  all  former  servants  of  God,  is  poured  into  the  candlestick  of 
the  church. 

6.     The  Flying  Roll. 

Chap.  5:  v.  1  -4. 

This  vision,  as  well  as  the  following,  is  of  a  mournful  character. 
They  show,  like  chap.  11,  that  it  was  by  no  means  the  object  of 
the  prophet  to  promote  at  all  events  the  building  of  the  temple,  but 
that  it  was  rather  his  principal  purpose  to  bring  the  people  to 
repentance  and  faith,  which  would  necessarily  be  followed  by  zeal 


:ZECHARIAH  5:  1-4.  45 

for  the  outward  work,  which  had  been  commenced.  Excited  by 
Ez.  2  :  10,  the  prophet  here  sees  a  flying  roll,  twenty  yards  long  and 
ten  broad.  Its  dimensions  coincide  entirely  with  those  of  the  porch 
of  the  temple,  1  Kings  6 :  3.  This  cannot  possibly  he  accidental, 
as  several  interpreters  have  supposed.  The  porch,  the  outermost 
part  of  the  temple  proper,  was  the  place  from  which  God  was  re- 
garded as  dealing  with  his  people,  in  like  manner  as  Solomon, 
1  Kings  7 :  6,  judged  the  people  in  the  porch  of  his  palace.  Before 
the  porch,  therefore,  in  the  court  of  tlie  prv^sts,  stood  the  altar  of 
burnt-offering.  In  a  great  public  calamity  the  supplicating  priests 
drew  still  nearer  into  the  porch,  to  embrace  as  it  were  the  feet  of 
an  offended  father  ;  comp.  Joel  2  :  17,  "  Let  the  pi-iests,  the  mim's- 
ters  of  the  Lord,  weep  betiveen  the  porch  and  the  altar  of  the  Lord, 
and  soy,  Sparc  thy  people,  O  Lord,  and  give  not  thine  heritage  to 
reproach.'''  When,  therefore,  the  prophet  gives  to  the  flying  roll, 
the  symbol  of  the  divine  judgri  ent  upon  the  covenant  peof-le,  the 
dimensions  of  the  porch,  he  intimates,  that  this  judgment  is  a  con-f 
sequence  of  the  Theocracy.  A  similar  symbolic  representation 
occurs,  when,  chap.  6:  1,  the  chariots,  the  symbols  of  the  divine 
judgments  upon  the  nations  hostile  to  the  Theocracy,  go  forth  from 
between  the  two  mountains,  the  symbol  of  the  Theocracy.  The  roll 
is  inscribed  on  both  sides  nini  n.JO,  exactly  as  the  tables  of  the  law, 
Exod.  32  :  15,  whence  the  expression  is  borrowed,  and  also  as  the 
roll,  Ez.  2 :  9,  10.  On  the  one  side,  are  the  curses  against  those 
who  abuse  the  name  of  the  Lord  by  perjury;  on  the  other,  those 
against  thieves  (TO^  in  the  sense  exterminare  in  Niph.  Is.  3 :  26,  in 
Pi.  Jer.  30  :  11,  where  the  meaning  puram  declaravit  is  commonly 
assumed  contrary  to  the  parallelism.)  The  one  stands  as  an  indi- 
vidual example  of  those  who  violate  the  commands  of  the  first 
table  ;  the  other,  of  those  who  violate  the  commands  of  the  second  ; 
so  that  the  one  side  of  the  roll  contains  the  divine  threatening 
against  the  transgressors  of  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart ;  "  the  other  against  the  trans- 
gressors of  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thy- 
self." This  was  seen  by  Theodoret  :  Jl/?}  yuQ  tig  oUa&a  xaza  xi.e- 
mwv  novcov  xal  imogxcin;  TavTTjV  yiyivtju&ui  ti)v  uneiX-^v '  xaia  ndatjg 
yuQ  naqavo^iug  ttjv  iprj(pov  i'^r]i'£yy.ev  •  insidt]  yuq  oloq  6  vofioq  acu  ol 
■jiQO(f>r^Tai  iv  joinca  tm  Ao'/w  xgi^avtm,  iv  tw  ayan^ang  'avqiov  top 
■&i6v  aov  i^  oXrjg  ri^g  xagdiug  aov  x«t  ayan-^asig  xov  nXrjalov  aov  oig 
aiavTov,  dice  rijg  tTiiogylag  ical    t^?  xionijg  nav    tl8og  a/uaQilag    avvij- 


46  ZECHARIAH  5:  5-11. 

yavBV '  ■^  fiiv  yug  tmv  ogxav  nagce^aatg  aasfisiag  ffftf  to  xEcpaXaiov, 
uynfn]q  Se  &i:iag  tQ7]fxog  6  jotoviog,  i]  8s  xXoni]  t-1]v  fig  jov  nilag 
adLKicxv  8i]).oi,  ovdslg  8e  ayanav  xov  nkrj(jiov  aSiy.slv  tovtov  uvi^trai  * 
ntQitTiTixtt  jolvvv  tan  iwv  ulXmv  vofiav  ravra  ta  xscpdXaia,  xal  Hxoiag 
Toig  naQa^ixTaig  jtjv  zifiMQiav  i-Aslfr,v  ^jTislh^as.  —  This  curse  was  to 
go  forth  over  the  whole  land ;  it  was  not  merely  to  strike  the  trans- 
gressors slightly  and  superficially,  but  entirely  consume  them,  with 
all  that  belonged  to  them.  In  the  expression  ;  "  It  consumes  their 
house,  and  its  wood  and  its  stone,"  is  an  allusion  to  1  Kings  18  : 
38.  We  have  here,  therefore,  a  prediction  of  a  more  severe  judg- 
ment of  God  to  be  inflicted  upon  Judea  after  the  ungodliness, 
already  at  the  time  of  the  prophet  present  in  the  germ,  should 
have  taken  root  and  put  forth  boughs.  How  this  ungodliness  will 
lead  the  people  to  reject  the  Messiah,  and  thus  deprive  themselves 
of  the  last  means  of  their  deliverance,  is  further  unfolded  in  chap.  11, 

7.    The  Epha  and  the   Woman  sitting  therein. 

Verses  5-11. 

The  angelus  interpres,  who  had  withdrawn  for  a  while  into  the 
choir  of  the  heavenly  angels,  returns  to  the  prophet  in  order  to, 
explain  to  him  the  import  of  a  new  vision.  The  prophet  sees  a 
form  as  if  rising  from  a  mist,  but  is  not  able  to  recognise  it.  The 
angel  instructs  him  ;  "  This  is  the  Epha  which  goes  forth,"  not 
indeed,  which  is  ungrammatical,  "  This,  which  goes  forth,  is  an 
Epha."  It  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  suppose,  with  Jonathan,  {Hi 
sunt  populus,  qni  accipiebant  ac  dnhant  mensura  falsa,)  that  the 
prophet  alludes  to  false  measures.  Of  this  there  is  no  trace  in  the 
text.  The  sense  is  rather  :  As  the  Israelites  have  filled  up  the  meas- 
ure of  their  sins,  so  also  shall  the  full  measure  of  the  divine  punish- 
ment overtake  them.  As  a  symbol  of  this  thought,  the  Epha,  one 
of  the  largest  measures,  was  peculiarly  suitable.  That  we  are  not, 
with  several  interpreters,  to  stop  short  at  the  sins,  is  shown  by,  "  This 
is  the  measure  which  goes  forth"  which  includes  the  idea  of  the 
divine  judgment,  as  the  comparison  of  v.  2,  3,  shows.  The  exclu- 
sive reference  to  the  punishment,  attempted  by  others,  appears  how- 
ever to  be  refuted  by  the  interpretation  of  the  angel,  "  This  is  their 
eye  in  all  the  land,"  i.  e.  it  is  the  effort  of  the  whole  people  to  fill  up 
the  measure  of  their  sins,  and  thereby  bring  upon  themselves  a  full 


ZECHARIAH  5:  5-11.  47 

measure  of  the  divine  punishment.  And,  though  one  could  indeed 
give  prominency  only  to  the  latter,  they  are  intent  upon  nothing  but 
to  draw  down  the  divine  punislinient  with  violence  upon  themselves, 
still  a  concurrent  reference  to  the  sins  is  manifest  from  what  had 
gone  before,  where  the  Jewish  people,  personified  as  a  woman, 
already  sit  in  the  Epha,  before  the  divine  punishment  breaks  in 
upon  them.  The  word  yy  is  not  by  any  means  aspectus,  but  eye, 
comp.  chap.  9:1,"  To  the  Lord  is  the  eye  of  men,"  for,  "  The  eye 
of  the  Lord  is  directed  upon  men."  On  a  nearer  view  the  prophet 
perceives  that  a  woman  sits  in  the  middle  of  the  Epha,  v.  7.  "  This 
was  (namely,  what  I  saw,  i.  e  behold  there)  a  woman  sitting  in  the 
middle  of  the  Epha."  She  is  designated  by  the  angelns  interpres 
as  ungodliness,  (comp.  Mai.  1:4,)  the  ungodly  Jewish  people,  who, 
as  they  had  heretofore  sat  in  their  sins,  were  now  to  be  surrounded 
by  their  punishments.  Thereupon  the  woman  in  the  Epha,  in  which 
she  had  hitherto  sat  upright,  so  that  she  appeared  above  it,  is  thrown 
down,  and  a  great  lump  of  lead  laid  upon  her,  symbolizing,  that 
the  Lord  by  his  judgment  would  arrest  the  people  in  their  sinful 
course.  Two  winged  women  appear,  and  with  the  swiftness  of  wind 
bear  the  Epha  with  the  woman  through  the  air  into  the  land  of 
Shinar.  There  the  Epha  is  let  down,  and  the  woman  receives  her 
permanent  dwelling-place.  The  women,  no  doubt,  designate  the 
instruments,  which  God  will  employ  for  the  punishment  of  his  peo- 
ple, hostile  nations,  as  formerly  the  Babylonians.  The  duality 
belongs  to  the  symbol,  as  such,  not  to  the  thing  signified  by  it.  For 
the  carrying  of  so  great  a  measure  as  the  Epha,  two  persons  were 
required.  Great  difficulty  has  been  occasioned  to  the  interpreters 
by  the  mention  of  Shinar,  as  the  land  into  which  Israel  should  he 
carried  away.  It  has  led  Rosenmiiller  to  suppose,  that  the  prophet 
does  not  here  predict  the  future,  but  describe  the  past,  the  carrying 
away  of  the  Jews  to  Babylonia.  But  this  supposition  is  entirely 
untenable.  All  other  visions  of  Zechariah  relate  to  the  future,  how 
should  this  only  make  an  exception  ?  Immediately  before  a  future 
judgment  is  predicted,  how  then  should  this  prediction  refer  to  past 
times?  And  besides,  the  residence  in  Shinar,  in  v.  11,  in  contrast 
with  the  former,  which  was  brief,  is  represented  as  of  long,  and 
indeed  as  of  perpetual  duration.  Ignorance  of  the  custom  of  the 
prophets,  arising  from  the  nature  of  the  prophetic  vision,  to  represent 
the  future  under  the  image  of  the  past,  and  to  call  the  former  by  the 
name  of  the  latter,  has  led  to  these   and  other  unnatural  assump- 


48  ZECHARIAH  6 :  1-8. 

tions.  Of  this  custom  we  have  here  a  splendid  and  incontrovertible 
example,  which  serves  completely  to  repel  several  attacks  (which 
arise  from  ignorance  of  it)  against  the  genuineness  of  the  second 
part.  The  luture  dwelling-place  of  the  Jews  when  driven  out  of 
their  own  land,  the  prophet  here  designates  without  farther  expla- 
nation by  the  name  of  the  country  of  thjir  former  exile,  just  as  he 
does  chap.  10  :  11,  their  future  oppressors  by  the  names  of  Ashur 
and  Egypt. 

8.     The  Four  Chariots. 
Chap.  6:  V.  1-8. 

The  import  of  this  vision  stands  in  close  connexion  with  the 
foregoing.  After,  —  such  is  its  simple  meaning,  —  Israel  shall 
have  been  visited  by  severe  divine  judgments,  equally  fearful  chas- 
tisements shall  be  inflicted  upon  the  instruments,  which  God  had  in 
part  employed  in  the  punishment  of  his  people;  upon  all  nations  from 
one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other.  Here,  therefore,  the  last  general 
judgment  is  described,  which,  according  to  the  unanimous  predic- 
tion of  the  prophets,  will  follow  the  partial  judgment  upon  Israel, 
and  close  the  present  course  of  the  world.  See  further,  on  chap. 
12,  which  is  exactly  parallel,  as  in  general  between  the  visions  of 
the  first  and  the  prophecies  of  the  second  part  a  remarkable  par- 
allelism exists,  which  will  hereafter  be  more  fully  noticed. 

We  now  take  a  nearer  view  of  the  imagery  in  which  this  revela- 
tion is  imparted  to  the  prophet. 

He  sees  four  chariots,  v.  1.  With  respect  to  their  import,  he  is 
taught  by  the  declaration  of  the  nvgclus  intcrpres,  v.  5,  "  These  are 
the  four  winds  of  heaven,  which  go  forth  after  they  have  appeared 
as  ministers  before  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth."  The  four  winds 
of  heaven  serve  as  a  symbol  of  the  divine  judgments.  From  their 
personification,  the  circumstance  is  explained,  that  chariots  are 
attributed  to  them,  and  that  these  are  afterwards  identified  with  the 
winds,  of  which  they  are  to  be  considered  as  the  vehicles.  The 
figurative  representation  receives  light  from  some  passages  of  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel,  whom  the  prophet  seems  here,  as  commonly, 
without  prejudice  to  his  independence,  to  have  imitated.  The  divine 
judgments  breaking  in  from  all  sides  appear  also,  Jer.  49  :  36,  under 
the  image  of  the  four  winds  ;  "  And  I  bring  against  Elam  the  four 


ZECHARIAH  G:  1-8.  49" 

winds  from  the  four  ends  of  heaven,  and  I  scatter  them  according 
to  all  these  winds."  In  Ez.  chap.  1,  the  judgments  to  be  extended 
over  ail  regions  of  the  earth  are  symbolized  by  the  four  cherubim, 
over  whose  heads  the  Lord  is  enthroned,  and  whose  chariots  are 
driven  towards  the  regions  for  which  they  have  been  destined  ;  by 
the  wind,  the  divine  anger,  or  the  divine  sentence  of  punishment, 
comp.  V.  12,  as  in  v.  4 ;  they  come  with  a  great  storm  from  the  north, 
to  indicate  that  the  divine  judgment  breaks  in  upon  Judah  from 
Babylon.  Similar  also  is- Dan.  7:2;  "  I  saw  the  four  winds  of 
heaven  strive  upon  the  great  sea,"  symbol  of  the  whole  multitude  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  Apoc.  7:1;  Kul  [inu  juma  tlSov  riaaa- 
Q«q  ayyiXovg  suTiaTug  inl  rug  Tsuaagag  ywviug  rijg  yr]g,  KQajoividg  lovg 
TfdaaQag  ufs/iovg  Ttjg  yijg.  The  only  difference  is,  that  here,  as  in 
Ezekiel,  the  winds  themselves  do  not  ride  on  the  chariots,  but  an- 
gels, who  are  placed  over  the  winds  and  driven  by  them. 

The  chariots  go  forth  from  the  two  mountains,  and  these  moun- 
tains are  of  brass.  The  judgment  is  hereby  designated  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  Theocracy.  The  symbolic  representation  is  to  be 
explained  from  the  geography  of  Jerusalem.  Ritter,  Erdk.  II.  p. 
406;  "  a  deep  valley  {^u&ela  cpagny^,  vallis  profunda)  runs  parallel 
with  the  Jordan  from  north  to  south,  but  after  a  course  of  some 
hours  turns  eastward  towards  the  Dead  Sea.  It  is  the  very  narrow 
valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  the  loadi  in  it  is  the  bed  of  the  brook 
Kedron,  which  lies  dry  a  great  part  of  the  year.  On  both  sides  of 
this  valley,  above  where  it  turns  towards  the  sea,  steep  hills  of  lime- 
stone rise  to  different  heights;  three  of  their  summits,  on  the  east 
side  of  the  brook,  are  naked  on  the  eastern  declivity,  but  on  the 
western  shaded  with  shrubbery,  especially  with  olive  trees,-  from 
which  they  have  from  the  most  ancient  time  borne  the  name  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives."  That  the  prophet  had  in  view  particularly  the 
valley  of  Jehoshaphat  appears  from  the  parallel  passage,  chap.  14  :  4, 
where,  in  a  sense  to  be  hereafter  determined,  an  extension  of  this 
valley,  by  the  cleaving  asunder  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  is  promised. 
"  And  the  Mount  of  Olives  is  divided  in  the  midst,  so  that  there  is 
a  great  valley  from  west  to  east ;  and  one  half  of  the  mountain  falls 
back  towards  the  north,  and  the  other  towards  the  south;  and  ye 
flee  through  my  valley  of  the  mountains,  for  the  valley  of  the  moun- 
tains will  reach  to  Azal."  As,  in  the  passage  before  us,  the  dis- 
course relates  to  the  valley  between  two  definite  mountains  ;  so  there 
the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat  xar   i^ox^v  is  called  the  Lord's  valley  of 

VOL.  n.  7 


50  ZECHARIAH  6:  1-8. 

the  mountains.  But  why  does  the  prophet,  in  order  to  designate  the 
judgment  as  a  consequence  of  the  Theocracy,  make  the  four  chari- 
ots go  forth  particularly  from  this  valley  of  the  mountains?  Because 
it  lay  under  the  Temple  mountain,  and  was  the  nearest  place  to  the 
Temple  accessible  to  carriages,  which  was  the  dwelling-place  of  the 
Lord  under  the  Old  Testament.  Here,  therefore,  (comp.  v.  5,)  the 
four  winds  of  heaven  stationed  themselves,  expecting  the  commands 
of  the  Lord.  For  a  similar  reason,  because  this  place  was  the  near- 
est to  the  temple,  which  was  suited  to  contain  a  great  multitude  of 
men,  Joel,  chap.  4:1,  represents  the  Lord  as  here  collecting  the 
heathen  nations  for  judgment.  "  For  behold,  in  those  days,  at  the 
time  token  I  shall  restore  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  I  will  gather  all 
nations,  and  will  bring  them  down  into  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat, 
and  will  plead  with  them  there  for  my  people  and  for  my  heritage^ 
Israel,  lohom  they  have  scattered  among  the  nations,  and  parted  my 
land."  On  which  Cyril  of  Alexandria  remarks  :  XaQog  8s  omog  ov 
nolioig  aiadlotg  anixav  rijg  Itgovanlrj/x  iv  xolg  n§6g  rjoi  fiigsai, '  if/iXov 
8s  livm  (faal  v.al  innrjkatov.  Wherefore  were  the  two  mountains 
called  brazen  ?  To  indicate,  that  the  Lord  surrounds  his  kingdom 
with  a  wall  of  protection,  which  can  neither  be  scaled  nor  broken 
through.  This  truth  was  symbolized  by  the  position  of  Jerusalem,  as 
the  Psalmist  had  already  expressed  it  in  the  words  ;  "  The  mountains 
are  round  about  Jerusalem,  and  the  Lord  surrounds  his  people." 
In  order  to  make  the  type  more  conformable  to  the  reality,  the 
prophet  converts  the  mountains,  which  cover  Jerusalem  on  the  east- 
ern side,  into  brass.  As  ibr  the  rest,  that  the  whole  description  is 
to  be  figuratively  understood,  and  that  the  existence  of  the  temple 
at  the  time  of  the  judgment  upon  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  cannot 
be  inferred,  appears  partly  from  this  very  designation  of  the  moun- 
tains, partly  from  the  foregoing  chapter,  according  to  which,  before 
the  coming  of  this  judgment,  Jerusalem  shall  be  entirely  destroyed 
and  the  people  carried  into  exile. 

The  color  of  the  horses  is  here  equally  significant  as  in  chap.  1. 
It  indicates  the  destination  of  the  chariots  to  execute  judgment  upon 
the  enemies  of  God,  red  the  color  of  blood,  black  the  color  of  mourn- 
ing, white  the  color  of  victory.  But  here  the  circle  of  colors  suited 
to  the  sense  to  be  expressed  was  completed.  The  prophet,  there- 
fore, since  no  significant  color  remained  for  the  horses  of  the  fourth 
chariot,  was  compelled  to  give  them  an  unmeaning  color  (speckled), 
and  by  a  special  epithet  (D'2fp>?,  strong)  to  signify  the  attribute, 


ZECHARIAH  6:  1-8.  51. 

which,  in  the  case  of  the  others,  was  already  implied  in  the  color. 
Not  perceiving  this,  the  interpreters  following  Bochart  (Hieroz.  I. 
p.  ]  1 1  sqq  )  have  invented  a  meaning  (piirpureus)  for  □"'i'DX,  in  this 
passage,  which  it  elsewhere  never  has,  and  is  the  less  capable  of 
receiving  here,  since  it  occurs,  v.  7,  in  the  usual  acceptation  strong. 

After  the  prophet,  v.  4,  5,  has  received,  in  reply  to  his  question, 
information  from  the  angclus  intcrprcs  respecting  the  import  of  the 
four  chariots,  he  describes,  v.  6,  7,  the  direction,  which  in  inward 
contemplation  he  sees  them  take.  "  The  chariots  with  the  black 
horses  go  forth  towards  the  north  country,  and  the  white  follow  after 
them,  and  the  speckled  go  towards  the  south  country.  And,  as 
the  strong  went  forth,  they  desired  to  go  over  the  whole  earth,  and 
the  Lord  said,  '  Go  and  pass  over  the  earth,'  and  they  passed  over  the 
earth."  The  difficulty  here,  which  has  given  occasion  to  the  inter- 
preters for  the  most  forced  explanations,  is,  that  the  black  horses  of 
the  second  chariot  are  mentioned  first,  and  that  the  red  of  the  first 
appear  to  be  entirely  passed  over.  On  a  nearer  inspection,  however, 
this  difficulty  entirely  disappears,  the  red  horses  of  the  first  chariot 
are  here  the  strong  (disregard  of  the  article  is  the  chief  cause  of  the 
errors  of  interpreters),  those  in  comparison  with  which  the  rest  were 
to  be  regarded  as  weak,  although  in  themselves  considered  they 
were  strong,  and  had  before  in  part  been  designated  by  the  same 
epithet;  —  the  strongest  among  them.  These  are  mentioned  last, 
because,  feeling  their  power,  and  not  satisfied  like  the  rest  with 
any  particular  portion  of  the  earth,  they  desire  permission  of  the 
Lord  to  go  over  the  whole,  whereby  it  is  intended  to  express  the 
thought,  that  the  judgment  shall  be  strictly  universal,  no  portion 
of  the  earth  shall  be  exempted  from  it. 

The  chariot  with  the  black  and  that  with  the  white  horses  both 
go  towards  the  north  country.  There  must  be  a  reason  why  this 
country  is  expressly  mentioned,  and  two  chariots  depart  for  it. 
The  inhabitants  of  the  north  country, —  according  to  constant  usage, 
the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  —  had  been  in  times  past  the  most 
dangerous  enemies  of  the  covenant  people.  They,  therefore,  served 
the  prophet,  chap.  5,  as  a  type  of  their  future  enemies.  In  order  now 
to  express  the  thought,  that  after  the  latter  shall  have  returned  again 
to  the  Lord,  (comp.  chap.  12,)  the  former  shall  eminently  experience 
the  divine  chastisement,  he  makes  the  executioners  of  the  justice 
of  God  go  forth  in  a  peculiar  manner  towards  the  north  country. 
That  the  north  country  is  here  to  be  understood,  not  properly,  but 


52  ZECHARIAH  6:  9-15. 

typically,  appears  even  from  the  foregoing  chapter,  where  the 
prophet,  not  in  a  literal,  but  in  a  figurative  sense,  calls  the  country 
of  those  whose  punishment  is  here  announced,  the  land  of  Shinar. 

About  the  same  is  true  in  reference  to  the  south  country.  On 
the  south  of  Palestine  dwelt  the  Egyptians,  the  first  oppressors  of 
Israel,  who  were  elsewhere  also  combined  by  Zeciiariah  with  the 
enemies  from  the  north,  as  a  type  of  the  future  enemies  of  the  cov- 
enant people,  (comp.  10:  10,  11.)  That  only  one  chariot  departs 
for  them,  represents  them  as  comparatively  less  guilty,  since  their 
misconduct  from  length  of  time  now  appeared  in  a  less  striking 
light. 

The  vision  closes  with  an  explanation  of  the  Lord  to  the  prophet 
concerning  the  design  of  the  departure  of  the  chariots.  "  Behold 
those,  which  depart  for  the  north  country  make  mine  anger  to  rest 
on  the  north  country  ;"  comp.  Ezek.  5:  13  ;  "I  make  mine  anger 
rest,"  and  Zech.  9:1,  where  the  land  of  Hadrach  and  Damascus 
is  represented  as  the  resting-place  of  the  divine  sentence  of  punish- 
ment, which  included  in  itself  the  fulfilment.  The  explanation 
indeed  refers  in  the  first  instance  only  to  one  part,  which,  however, 
according  to  the  above  remarks,  was  the  chief  object  of  the  divine 
judgment :  but  the  prophet  could  easily  hence  deduce  the  destina- 
tion of  the  rest  sent  forth  under  similar  circumstances. 


9.    The  Croicn  on  the  Head  of  Joshua. 
Verses  9-15. 

The  future  developements  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  the 
prophet  had  described  in  the  preceding  context,  the  judgment,  upon 
the  former  covenant  people,  as  well  as  also,  after  their  restoration, 
upon  the  remaining  people  of  the  earth,  had  their  cause  and  source 
in  the  promised  Anointed  of  the  Lord,  and  presupposed  his  appear- 
ing. To  fix  the  attention  of  the  prophet,  and  through  him  that  of 
the  people  upon  this  point,  it  is  once  more  presented  to  his  inward 
contemplation  towards  the  close  of  his  ecstasy,  and  with  this,  as  the 
last  words  indicate,  at  once  lovely  and  terrific  image,  the  whole 
series  of  visions,  whose  collective  contents  in  some  way  refer  to  it, 
is  closed. 

V.  9.  "  Then  came  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  me :  (v.  10.)  Take 
of  them  of  the  captivity  of  Heldai,  of  Tobijah,  of  Jedaiah,  and  of 


ZECHARIAII  6:  9-15.  53 

Josinh  the  son  of  Zephaniah,  xolio  have  come  from  Babylon,  when 
thou  goest  into  the  house  of  the  last  named;  (v.  11.)  take,  I  say, 
silver  and  gold,  and  make  croiv/is,  and  place  them  on  the  head  of 
Joshua  the  son  of  Josedech,  the  high  priest."  Tlie  prophecy  pre- 
supposes certain  historical  circumstances,  tlie  knowledge  of  which 
is  necessary  in  order  to  understand  it.  It  appears,  that  the  Jews, 
great  numbers  of  whom  remained  in  Babylonia,  on  hearing  of  the 
rebuilding  of  the  temple,  which  had  now  been  going  on  for  five 
months,  had  .sent  deputies  with  pecuniary  aid  to  Jerusalem.  This 
does  not  indeed  appear  from  the  expression  "  of  the  captives,"  or 
of  the  exiles  in  v.  10.  For  nSun,  in  the  book  of  Ezra,  is  some- 
times a  designation,  not  indeed  of  those  still  in  the  exile,  but  of 
those  already  returned,  commonly  called  the  sons  of  the  captives. 
It  is  manifest,  however,  from  a  comparison  of  v.  15.  There  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  "  captivity,"  are  described  as  a  type  of  the 
distant  heathen  nations,  who  will  hereafter  actively  promote  the 
building  of  the  temple  or  church  of  God.  This  type  disappears,  if 
by  the  captivity,  the  exiles,  who  had  long  since  returned,  are  under- 
stood, 'n"!,  "  and  when  it  happened,"  connects  this  vision  with  the 
foregoing ;  it  was  delivered  to  the  prophet  in  the  same  night  with 
the  others,  and  contains  a  charge  in  respect  to  a  symbolic  action  to 
be  afterwards  performed.  With  respect  to  the  use  of  the  Infn. 
absol.  nips,  instead  of  the  Imper.,  comp.  Ewald,  p.  558.  As  the 
verb  is  separated  from  its  object  by  the  full  description  of  those  from 
whom  the  gold  and  silver  were  to  be  received,  it  is  once  more  re- 
peated for  the  sake  of  greater  clearness.  nSun  nXT  precedes  the 
naming  of  the  particular  persons,  in  order  to  indicate,  that  these 
have  not  come  privatim,  but  as  representatives  and  deputies  of  a 
whole  corporation,  the  Jews  still  living  in  the  exile  ;  just  as  in  chap. 
7:  2,  Scharezer  and  Regemmelech  appear  as  deputies  of  the  Pal- 
estine Jews,  ("  The  house,  the  church  of  the  Lord  sent  Scharezer," 
&c.)  and  speak  in  the  name  of  the  whole  people,  ("  Shall  I  weep," 
dz-c,  V.  3.)  This  representative  character  of  the  individuals  was  im- 
portant for  the  object  of  the  prophet.  Only  in  this  respect  were  they 
suited  to  become  a  type  of  the  heathen  nations.  —  The  interpreters, 
for  the  most  part,  suppose,  that  only  three  deputies  had  come  from 
Babylon,  and  that  Josiah,  the  son  of  Zephaniah,  was  the  person  by 
whom  they  were  entertained  at  Jerusalem.  They  translate,  "  When 
thou  goest  into  the  house  of  Josiah,  into  which  they  have  come," 
quam  ingressi  sunt,  "  from  Babylon."     But  this  is  contradicted  by 


54  ZECHARIAH  6:  9-15, 

V.  14,  15,  where  Josiah  appears  as  a  partaker  in  the  dedication  of 
the  crown,  as  a  joint  type  of  the  distant  heathen  nations,  who  should 
build  in  the  temple  of  the  Lord.  We  must,  therefore,  translate 
Sddd  1X3  "i»vX,  "who  have  come  from  Babylon,"  and  refer  it  to  all  the 
four  who  had  been  mentioned.  The  expression,  "  and  thou  shall 
go  into  the  house  of  Josiah,"  is  i.  q.  "  and  from  Josiah,  into  whose 
house  thou  shalt  go."  The  reason  why  the  prophet  should  go  into 
the  house  of  Josiah  probably  was,  that  he  was  the  treasurer  of  tlie 
community,  in  whose  house  the  presents  which  had  been  brought 
were  deposited.  In  the  view  of  ilie  prophet  the  names  of  the  depu- 
ties are  as  tyi)ical  as  their  persons;  he  regards  them  as  intimations 
of  the  attril)Utes  of  those  whom  the  persons  typified,  and  of  the 
blessings  destined  for  them.  This  appears  from  the  comparison  of 
V.  14.  There  two  of  the  deputies  bear  a  name  different  from  that 
which  here  occurs,  but  of  the  same  import.     "'I'ln,  the  robust,  from 

nhn  r=  0<\^  perennavit,  sempiternus  fuit,  xiegcta  viridique  senec- 
tutefuit,  is  there  called  o"?!?,  strong,  from  dSh,  to  be  strong.  Josiah, 
God  founds  or  sustains,  from  T^^^^i  V)^^,fundavit,  from  which 
comes  Ti^V/ii  fulcimen,  fulcimentu?n,  Jerem.  50  :  15,  is  there  called  |n, 
grace.  This  variation  is  plainly  designed  ;  the  easy  remark  oportet 
Jios  homines  binomines  fuisse  of  several  interpreters  is  not  a  sufficient 
explanation,  and  the  efforts  to  change  the  text  rest  on  mere  caprice. 
It  is  designed  to  show,  that  the  names  should  be  taken,  not  as  cur- 
rent coin,  but  in  their  original  worth.  That  the  other  names  also, 
besides  those  already  explained,  —  Tobijah,  goodness  of  God,  Jed- 
aiah,  God  knows,  Deus  prospicit,  and  Zephaniah,  God  protects, — 
were  suited  to  the  design  of  the  prophet,  needs  no  further  proof. 
On  the  phrase  N-inn  Dva,  Michaelis  justly  remarks:  "Die  isto,  quo 
sciL  facer e  debes,  quce  nunc  mando.  Forte  deus  in  visione  diem  ali- 
quem  cerium  determinaverat,  quern  vero  in  visionis  descriptionc  ex- 
primere propheta  minus  necessarium  duxit."  —  Take  silver  and  gold 
and  make  croicns.  The  prophet  should  obtain  as  much  of  the  silver 
and  gold,  which  had  been  brought,  as  was  requisite  for  executing 
the  commission  he  had  received  from  the  Lord.  There  is  a  differ- 
ence among  the  interpreters  with  reference  to  the  number  of  the 
crowns  to  be  made.  The  common  opinion  is  in  favor  of  two,  in 
support  of  which,  it  is  said,  that  this  number  is  required  to  make 
the  type  correspond  with  the  following  prophecy,  which  announces 
the  union  of  the  high-priestly  and  the  regal  dignity  in  the  person 


ZECHARIAH  G:  9-15.  55 

of  the  Messiah,  and  with  the  reality.  But  against  this  argument 
Mark  has  already  very  justly  objected:  "  Ad  snctrdoiititn  cugitan- 
dum  non  diuit  heic  corona,  sed persona  et  munvs  Josucc.'^  We  can- 
not perceive,  why  that  should  be  made  the  subject,  of  an  additional 
type,  which  Joshua,  as  has  been  said,  chap.  3,  already  typified  liim- 
self.  Besides,  we  find  no  trace  of  two  crowns,  certainly  not  in 
the  duality  of  the  metals,  which  might  just  as  well  be  applied  to 
one  as  to  more.  Lastly,  the  question  still  arises,  whether  the  name 
crown,  n^aj'.,  can  be  given  to  the  head-dress  of  the  high  priest, 
which,  to  say  the  least,  it  receives  nowhere  else.  The  choice, 
therefore,  can  be  only  between  two  views,  either  that  but  one,  or 
that  several  crowns  were  made.  The  latter  cannot  indeed  be  sus- 
tained by  the  plural  nnoj; .  For  this  is  sufficiently  explained  by  the 
supposition  of  one  consisting  of  several  small  crowns  or  diadems.  It 
occurs  entirely  in  this  sense,  Job  31  :  36,  "/  toill  bind  it  around 
me  as  crowns,"  where  only  one  complex  crown  can  be  spoken  of,  as 
also  Apoc.  19:  12;  (xmI  inl  rtjv  xicpnlr^v  ttVTOv  Sitxdtj/^ma  nolXa), 
where  not  several  separate  diadems,  but  one  composed  of  many,  is 
attributed  to  Christ,  as  the  mark  of  his  regal  dignity.  The  idea 
of  one  crown  is  favored  partly  by  the  unsuitableness  and  insipidity 
of  a  plurality,  partly  by  its  being  placed  on  the  head  of  one,  Joshua, 
and  partly  by  the  connexion  of  the  sing,  of  the  verb  n:.rin  with  the 
plur.  nna;',  v.  14  ;  which,  however,  of  itself  would  not  be  decisive, 
(comp.  Ewald,  p.  639.)  —  Thus  far  the  prophecy  by  matters  of  fact 
expressed  by  the  symbolic  action.  Let  us  now  inquire,  how  far  this 
could  be  intelligible  to  Joshua  and  his  enlightened  contemporaries, 
even  without  the  following  verbal  prophecy.  The  putting  on  of 
the  crown  manifestly  signified  the  conferring  of  the  royal  dignity. 
Hereby,  therefore,  the  thought  was  forbidden,  that  the  prophecy  by 
matters  of  fact  could  refer  to  his  person  as  such.  Never  could  the 
kingdom  be  taken  from  the  house  of  David  without  a  violation  of 
the  promises  which  God  had  made  to  him.  Joshua,  therefore, 
could  not  doubt  that  the  crown  was  placed  upon  him  only  as  the 
type  of  another.  Who  this  was,  he  had  the  less  reason  to  doubt, 
since  he  had  just  before,  chap.  3,  been  greeted  as  a  type  of  the 
Messiah,  since,  according  to  Ezek.  21  :31,  &.C.,  the  diadem  and 
crown  should  be  taken  from  the  royal  stock,  until  they  should  be 
conferred  upon  the  Messiah,  and  as  David,  Ps.  110,  had  already 
predicted,  that  the  priesthood  of  the  Messiah  should  be  like  that  of 
Melchisedech,  that  he  should  unite  in  himself  the  dignity  of  high 


56  ZECHARIAH  6:  9-15. 

priest  and  king.  All  possible  uncertainty,  however,  was  done  away 
by  the  following  verbal  prophecy.  This  was  designed  to  explain 
the  fi)reg()ing  symbolic  action  in  two  respects;  first,  what  was  in- 
tended by  the  placing  of  the  crown  upon  the  head  of  Joshua,  and, 
secondly,  why  the  material  of  this  crown  was  taken  from  the  dep- 
uties and  representatives  of  brethren,  who  were  dwelling  in  distant 
lands.     V.  12,  13,  relate  to  the  former,  v.  14,  15,  to  the  latter. 

V.  12.  '*  And  any  to  him,  thus  saith  the  Lord:  see  there  a  man 
tohose  name  is  Branch ;  out  of  his  ground  shall  he  spring  forth,  and 
build  the  temple  of  the  Lord."  The  prophecy  is  here  placed  after 
the  synonymous  symbolic  action,  as  if  independent  of  it.  The  par- 
ticle T\-.!r\  points  to  the  Messiah  as  present,  and  admonishes  Joshua, 
who  represents  hitn  in  name  and  office,  to  direct  towards  him  his 
spiritual  eye.  The  manner  in  which  the  appellation  nov  is  here 
employed,  as  a  sort  of  proper  name  of  the  Messiah,  yet,  as  the 
context  shows,  with  a  close  regard  to  its  appellative  import,  points 
back  to  the  earlier  prophecies,  especially  those  of  Jeremiah,  (comp. 
on  chap.  3,)  in  which  the  Messiah  had  been  represented  as 
a  sprout  of  David  to  be  raised  up  by  the  Lord.  The  phrase 
nnV!  I'^H'^'^  is  to  be  translated,  desubter  sc  germinabit.  It  contains 
the  explanation  of  nnV.  The  great  subject  of  promise  will  justly 
bear  the  name  branch  or  sprout.  For  he  will  not  descend  from 
above  in  full  glory,  but,  like  a  plant  slowly  springing  up  from  the 
ground  beneath,  raise  himself  by  degrees  from  his  original  obscu- 
rity. According  to  this  explanation,  nnno  stands  opposed  to  Sj»;^D, 
just  as  e.  g.  Exod.  20  :  4  ;  "  Thou  shalt  make  to  thyself  no  likeness 
of  that  which  is  in  heaven  above,  S>'"3I3,  and  of  that  which  is  on  the 
earth  beneath,  nnno,"  and  Amos.  2  :  9.  Correctly,  Drusius :  "  Ger- 
men  vacatur,  quia  ex  se  repr.nte  succresctt,  et  ex  radice  sua  in  simili- 
tudinem  gcrminis  puUulabit."  The  explanation  of  others  is  to  be 
rejected,  who  give  to  the  verb  nnv\  another  subject  than  the  Mes- 
iah,  as  Luther:  "  Under  him  it  will  grow;"  Calovius:  "Sub  eo  et 
yus  regno  germinabunt  et  florehunt  omnia  ;  "  Burk  :  "Gcrmen  est  ipse, 
et  sub  illo  opus  guoque  univcrsum  pnlchre  germinabit ;"  Jerome  :  "  Et 
subter  eum  orietur  multitudo  credentium,"  Cyril,  &c.  It  is  an  un- 
suitable image,  that  under  the  sprout,  therefore,  out  of  its  roots,  all, 
or  the  multitude  of  believers,  shall  grow.  This  growth  does  not 
appear  till  the  shoot  becomes  a  great  tree,  under  which  Ezekiel  in 
the  parallel  prophecy,  chap.  17:22-24,  makes  all  the  fowls  of 
heaven  dwell ;    the  substitution  of  another  subject  than  the  noun 


ZECHARIAHG:  9-15.  57 

immediately  preceding  is  unnatural  ;  the  parallel  passage  of  Jere- 
miah, which  the  prophet  had  just  had  before  his  eyes,  chap,  33:  15, 
"  Behold  I  make  a  righteous  sprout  spring  forth  to  David,"  shows,, 
that  as  the  Alessiah  is  there  he  whom  the  Lord  causes  to  spring  up, 
so  is  he  here  the  sprout  itself.  Another  explanation,  "  He  will 
sprout  up  out  of  his  own  place"  (Alting:  "c  loco  sua,  turn  quod 
ad  genteyn,  ex  dome  Davidis,  Judcc,  Abraharai,  quibus  factce  sunt 
promissiones,  Uim  quod  ad  patriam  ;  "  Tarnov,  Reuss,  &-c.,)  takes 
vnnno  as  simply  synonymous  with  lDip*vp,  as  it  has  already  been 
explained  by  Kimchi  and  Abenezra,  but  erroneously,  since  ntin  in 
the  Hebrew,  as  well  as  in  all  the  kindred  dialects,  never  has  the 
meaning  j^Zace,  but  always,  if  the  passages  are  accurately  examined, 
that  of  bdoio.  It  deprives  the  explanation  of  npy  of  an  essential 
characteristic,  the  original  obscurity  of  the  Messiah,  and  introduces 
in  its  stead  one  foreign  to  the  purpose.  It  diminishes  in  this  man- 
ner the  force  of  the  contrast  with  the  following  member,  which 
consists  in  this,  that  he,  who  at  first  appears  in  obscurity,  will  so 
build  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  that  every  former  building  of  it  shall 
be  comparatively  nothing.  —  He  builds  the  temple  of  the  Lord. 
That  the  building  of  the  outward  temple  cannot  here  be  spoken 
of,  as  the  Jewish  interpreters  dream,  has  been  well  proved  by  Reuss 
in  the  learned  Dissert.,  qua  orac.  Zach.  6  :  12,  13.  expL,  Opuscc. 
t.  I.  p.  1  -  156.  Nowhere  is  a  building  of  the  outward  temple 
attributed  to  the  Messiah.  Our  prophet  had  himself  declared  in 
the  name  of  God,  chap.  4  :  10,  that  the  building  of  the  temple  begun 
by  Zerubbabel,  should  also  be  completed  by  him;  and  this  same 
temple,  according  to  his  predecessor  Haggai,  chap.  2:7-9,  and 
his  successor,  Mai,  3  :  1,  should  be  glorified  by  the  presence  of  the 
Messiah.  The  building  of  the  temple  and  the  high  priesthood  of 
the  Messiah  must  still  stand  iti  a  certain  relation  to  each  other.  If 
now  the  purity  to  be  effected  by  the  latter  is  not  outward,  but 
inward  ;  if,  as  our  prophet  from  his  zealous  study  of  his  predeces- 
sors, (comp.  Is.  53,)  must  have  known,  and  according  to  chap.  12 
and  13,  actually  did  know,  this  purity  was  to  be  obtained,  not  by 
the  blood  of  animals,  but  by  the  high  priest's  own  blood,  then 
surely  must  the  prophet,  when  he  is  led  by  the  building  of  the  tem- 
ple in  his  time  to  attribute  such  a  work  to  the  Messiah,  be  under- 
stood figuratively  ;  and  the  more  so,  since,  as  we  have  already  had 
frequent  occasion  to  show,  it  is  his  constant  custom  to  rise  from  the 
shadow  of  future  blessings  to  the  blessings  themselves,  and  to  repre- 

VOL.    II.  8 


gg  ZECHARIAH  6:9-15. 

sent  the  future  under  the  image,  and  by  the  name,  of  the  present. 
—  It  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  it  is  not  here  asserted,  that  the 
Messiah  would  build  a  temple  to  the  Lord,  but  the,  temple  of  the 
Lord.  The  temple  is  thus  designated  as  perpetually  existing,  as 
constantly  the  same  ;  it  is,  however,  to  be  exalted  by  the  Messiah 
to  a  glory  never  anticipated  before.  We  now  inquire,  in  what  sense 
the  building  of  the  temple  is  attributed  to  the  Messiah.  The  temple 
was  the  seat  of  the  kingdom  of  God  under  the  Old  Testament ;  it 
is  this,  not  the  walls  or  any  thing  else  of  an  outward  nature,  which 
constituted  the  essence  of  the  idea.  Thereby,  however,  was  it  suit- 
ed for  an  image  and  type  of  the  kingdom  of  God  itself,  the  church, 
which  by  no  means  began  with  Christ,  but,  under  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  is  one  and  the  same.  Cocceius  :  "  Tcmplum  autem  dd 
unum  est,  nempp.  ecclesia  tcoc  (Sbi'C,oiifvbiv,  inde  a  promissione  in  para- 
diso  proiniilgata,  usque  ndjinem  mundi."  This  temple  Solomon  and 
Zerubbabel  had  contributed  to  build,  so  far  as  their  outward  efforts 
proceeded  from  faith,  and  were  not  directed  to  what  was  external  as 
such,  not  to  the  shell  but  to  the  kernel,  which  remained  when  the 
shell  had  long  been  broken. 

V.  13.  "  And  he  will  build  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  and  he  will 
bear  mnjesty  ;  and  he  sits  and  reigns  on  his  throne,  and  is  a  priest 
on  his  throne  and  the  counsel  of  peace  shall  be  between  them  both.'* 
The  repetition  of,  "  and  he  will  build  the  temple,"  is  by  no  means 
an  idle  one.  As  these  words,  v.  12,  in  the  antithesis  with  "  he  will 
spring  out  of  the  earth,"  direct  the  attention  to  the  fact,  that  a  glo- 
rification of  the  kingdom  of  God,  never  anticipated  before,  would 
proceed  from  the  Messiah,  notwithstanding  his  original  obscurity, 
so  do  they  here,  as  the  Nim  repeated  in  both  sentences  shows, 
closely  relate  to  the  following,  "  and  he  will  bear  majesty."  They 
call  the  attention  to  the  circumstance,  that  the  building  of  a  far 
superior  temple,  an  infinitely  greater  glorification  of  the  Theoc- 
racy, was  to  be  expected  from  the  Messiah  clothed  with  majesty, 
than  from  the  poor  and  obscure  Zerubbabel.  They  thus  opened  for 
those  who  were  mourning  over  the  feeble  and  small  beginning  of  the 
new  colony  a  rich  fountain  of  consolation  ;  they  raise  their  view 
from  the  poor  present  to  the  splendid  future.  —  The  words,  "  he 
will  bear  majesty,"  contain  the  explanation  of  the  putting  on  of  the 
crown  in  the  symbolic  action.  The  noun  Tin  stands  by  way  of 
eminence  for  the  kingly  majesty,  comp.  1  Chron.  29  :  25  ;  "  And 
the  Lord  made  Solomon  great,  and  bestowed  upon  him  kingly  maj- 


ZECHARIAH  6:9-15.  59 

esty  and  glory,  no^n  nin,  which  no  king  possessed  before  him  ;  " 
Dan.  11:  25,  "They  bestow  not  upon  him  the  kingly  majesty," 
n07n  nin  ;  Ps.  21  :  6,  8:6,  where  man  appears  as  a  subordinate 
king  appointed  by  God;  and  that  in  this  special  meaning  the  word 
is  to  be  taken  here  also,  appears  from  the  reference  to  the  symbolic 
action  and  from  the  context.  Several  translate,  "  He  will  receive 
majesty,"  and  especially  has  Reuss  given  himself  much  trouble  to 
defend  this  interpretation.  But  majesty  and  dominion  are  elsewhere 
also  often  represented  as  something  borne  by  rulers,  upon  their 
heads,  with  reference  to  the  badge  of  the  regal  dignity,  the  crown, 
comp,  e.  g.,  besides  the  cited  passages  of  Chron.,  Dan.,  and  Ps., 
Num.  27  :  20  ;  "  Thou  bestowedst  of  thy  majesty,  "iTina,  upon  him  ;  " 
and  this  representation  was  here  the  more  natural,  as  the  prophet 
had  before  him  Joshua,  bearing  on  his  head  the  crown,  the  badtre 
of  dominion.  "  He  sits,"  and  "he  reigns,"  differ  from  each  other 
in  this,  that  the  former  signifies  the  possession  of  the  regal  honor 
and  dignity,  the  latter  the  actual  exercise  of  the  regal  power.  —  The 
stiff,  in  1XD3  is  referred  by  several,  especially  Vitringa,  Obss.  s.  1,  p. 
317,  and  Reuss  ("  ita  in  solium  JehovcB  exaltatum  iri,  ut  non  modo 
divines  illius  majestatis  et  gloria:  particeps  sit,  sed  actu  etiam  impe- 
rium  ipse  administret,")  to  Jehovah.  But  this  interpretation  plainly 
originated  in  over  fondness  for  emphasis,  which  is  too  often  manifest 
in  the  otherwise  estimable  treatise  of  Reuss.  The  close  relation  is 
thus  overlooked,  in  which  the  first  l5<?3~Sjr  stands  with  the  second. 
This  relation  shows,  that  the  emphasis  does  not  rest  on  the  suff., 
that  the  object  of  the  prophet  is  rather,  to  render  prominent  the 
thought,  that  the  Messiah  would  be  both  a  king  and  high  priest 
on  one  and  the  same  throne.  This  truth,  however,  was  in  the  high- 
est degree  consoling  to  the  covenant  people.  It  gave  them  a  pledge, 
that  their  future  head  should  possess  both  the  power  and  the  will  to 
help  them.  As  a  true  high  priest,  the  Messiah  should  represent  his 
people  before  God,  and  procure  for  them  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  as 
the  prophet  had  already  more  fully  predicted,  chap.  3  ;  as  a  true  king, 
of  whose  glory  all  who  had  preceded  w  ere  only  a  feeble  copy,  he 
should  protect  the  objects  of  his  favor,  and,  in  general,  make  them 
partakers  of  all  the  blessings  designed  for  them  by  God.  —  In  the 
last  words  there  is  a  difference  in  the  interpretation,  first,  of  the 
phrase  "  between  them  both."  Very  ancient  (even  Jerome  men- 
tions it),  and  widely  spread  (Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Bengel,  Reuss, 
&-C.)  is  the  interpretation,  "  inter  ger men  et  Jehovam."     On  the  con- 


60  ZECHARIAH  6  :  9-  15. 

trary,  a  still  greater  number  of  interpreters,  (Jerome,  Mark,  Michae- 
lis,  fcc.,)  refer  the  phrase,  "  between  both,"  to  the  two  offices  or 
persons  of  high  priest  and  king  united  in  the  Messiah.  This  latter 
interpretation  is  clearly  to  be  preferred.  The  objection,  that  the 
king  was  not  expressly  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  context,  is  of  no 
importance,  as  the  Messiah  had  been  plainly  enough  designated 
as  a  king.  The  distinction  between  him  as  king  and  as  high 
priest  is  the  less  strange,  since  a  reference  to  the  earlier  Theocracy 
plainly  lies  at  the  foundation,  where  the  two  offices  united  in  the 
Messiah  were  adrhinistered  by  two  persons.  Mark  cites  as  analo- 
gous, the  distinction  between  the  inward  and  outward,  the  old  and 
the  new  man.  It  is  decisive  in  favor  of  this  interpretation,  that 
only  according  to  it  do  the  words  stand  in  an  apposite  relation  to 
the  chief  object  of  the  whole  prophecy,  the  union  of  the  kingly  and 
the  high-priestly  office  in  the  Messiah  ;  but,  in  addition  to  this,  the 
two  must  necessarily  be  the  last  mentioned,  so  that  only  according 
to  the  false  reference  of  the  svff.  in  ixp.'?  can  Jehovah  be  regarded 
as  belonging  to  them. —  A  second  difference  occurs  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  Dl'7K'  n^i\  After  Jerome,  ("  Et  consilium  pacijicum  erit 
inter  utrumque,  lit  nee  regale  fastigium  sacerdotalem  deprimat  dig- 
nitatem, nee  sacerdotii  dignitas  regale  fastigium,  sed  in  unius  gloria 
domini  Jesu  utrumque  consentiat,")  several,  as  Michaelis,  ("  Bene  eis 
convenict  suavis  infer  utrumque  concordia  erit")  refer  these  words 
to  the  harmony  of  these  two  offices  united  in  the  Messiah,  in  con- 
trast with  the  discordance  which  often  formerly  occurred  to  the' 
injury  of  the  Theocracy,  when  they  were  administered  by  different 
persons.  Others,  on  the  contrary,  take  DiSk/  as  gen.  objecti :  con- 
silium de  pace  comparanda,  conferenda,  conservanda.  This  in- 
terpretation is  plainly  the  true  one.  The  first  takes  nifjr  ,  "  coun- 
sel, deliberation,"  in  the  sense  "  disposition,"  which  is  entirely  un- 
tenable. Altogether  similar  is  Is.  53:5,  uniS^?  ngiD,  "the  chas- 
tisement, which  has  our  peace  for  its  object,"  and  Zech.  8 :  16, 
^ttSty  □iSk'  nsK/rp,  which  Jerome  rightly  explains :  "  Hoc  est  judi- 
cium, pacis,  ut  propositum  judex  habeat  pacijicare  discordes,  juxta 
illud  Evangelii :  Beati  parijici."  The  prophet,  therefore,  represents 
the  Messiah  as  king,  and  the  Messiah  as  high  priest,  devising  the 
best  method  and  way  to  secure  peace  and  prosperity  to  the  covenant 
people.  If  at  the  present  time  the  common  effort  of  Zerubbabel 
and  Joshua,  which  was  only  a  feeble  type,  to  promote  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  Theocracy,  had  been  attended  with  happy  results,  what 


ZECHARIAH  6:9-15.  61 

might  be  expected  when  the  true  high  priest  and  the  true  king, 
the  Messiah,  should  strive  with  anxious  care  for  this  oltject,  when 
he  should  employ  all  the  means  which  these  two  dignities  united  in 
himself  supplied. 

V.  14.  "  And  the  croforu  shall  be  to  Hclcm,  and  to  Tobijah,  and 
to  Jedaiah,  and  to  Hen,  the  son  of  Zephaniah,  for  a  memorial  iii 
the  tctnple  of  the  Lord."  The  prophet  here  proceeds  to  explain  the 
other  point  of  the  symbolic  action,  the  circumstance  that  the  mate- 
rial of  the  crown  had  been  received  from  the  deputies  and  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Jews,  who  dwelt  far  from  their  native  land.  The 
crown  should  be  to  these  for  a  memorial,  not,  as  is  shown  by  what 
follows,  on  account  of  their  personal,  but  their  typical  quality,  so  far 
as  each  one  at  the  sight  of  the  crowns  would  call  to  mind,  that  those, 
who  had  consecrated  them,  in  reality  and  name  typified  the  heathen, 
who  hereafter,  as  thei/  had  done  now,  hastening  from  distant  lands, 
would  make  every  effort  with  the  greatest  readiness  in  order  to  adorn 
the  temple,  to  promote  tiie  kingdom  of  God  — Whether  the  action 
here  commanded  to  the  prophet  in  vision  was  afterwards  actually 
performed  by  him  outwardly  is  extremely  doubtful,  however  posi- 
tively llulsemann  (Vir  Zemach,  in  the  Thes.  Theol  Phil.l.,^.  1005 
sqq.)  asserts  it.  Certainly  the  account  of  the  Talmudist,  (Middoth 
3,  8,)  respecting  the  place,  where  the  crown  was  hung  up  in  the 
temple,  can  prove  nothing.  The  opposite  opinion  is  in  a  measure 
favored  by  v.  11,  where  the  prophet,  who  was  hardly  a  goldsmith,  is 
.commanded  to  make  the  crowns,  which  can  indeed,  if  necessary,  be 
understood  of  causing  them  to  be  made.  A  far  stronger  argument, 
however,  is  drawn  from  the  prevailing  fondness  of  Zechariah  for 
what  is  internal,  which,  in  his  case,  as  in  that  of  Ezekiel,  awakens 
a  prejudice  against  the  outward  representation,  which  can  be  set 
aside  only  by  weighty  reasons,  and  especially  from  the  analogy  of 
the  other  symbolic  action,  chap.  11,  which  was  certainly  performed 
only  in  inward  contemplation,  to  which  also  all  the  remaining  vis- 
ions of  this  portion  were  confined. 

V.  15.  "  And  they  that  are  far  off  shall  come  and  build  in  the  tem- 
ple of  the  Lord;  and  ye  shall  knoio  that  the  Lord  of  Hosts  hath  sent 
me  unto  you,  and  if  ye  will  hearken  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord  your 

God,  so" How  the   participation  of  those  who  were  distant, 

the  heathen  in  distant  lands,  comp.  2  :  11,  8  :  20,  Is.  60 :  9,  10,  and 
other  passages,  in  the  building  of  the  temple  is  to  be  understood, 
needs  no  particular  illustration  after  what  has  been  said  respecting 
the  building  of  the  temple  by  the  Messiah.     If  we  looked  merely  at 


62  ZECHARIAH  6  :  9  - 15. 

this  passage,  we  might  be  induced  to  take  the  words,  "  and  ye  shall 
know,"  &.C.,  as  words  of  the  prophet;  but  the  comparison  of  chap. 
2:9,  11,  and  chap.  4:  9,  where  they  are  spoken  by  the  angel  of 
the  Lord,  througli  wliom  the  prophet  receives  his  revelations,  shows, 
that  here  also  they  belong  to  him ;  and  this  supposition  is  the  more 
natural,  since  the  prophet,  v.  12,  expressly  introduces  as  speaking 
Jehovah  of  Hosts,  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord  in  the  former  passage 
also  is  called.  The  result,  the  active  participation  of  the  heathen 
in  building  up  the  kingdom  of  God,  should  in  the  future  furnish  a 
proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  both  the  symbolical  and'the  verbal  pre- 
diction. —  The  last  words  have  been  erroneou.sly  understood  in  vari- 
ous ways,  Jerome.  "  Fient  autcm  oi/iuia,  qncB  proinissnsinit,  si  domi- 
num  audirc  voluerint,  it  acta poznitcntia  in  bonis  operibus  manserint." 
Theodoret  :  Taviu  dd,  (prjair,  iozat,  xai  to  7iQoar,y.ov  Si^Ejai  niqag, 
iav  vfisig  to7?  &Hotg  vnaxovarjts  Xoyoig.  According  to  this,  the  ap- 
pearing of  the  Messiah,  and  especially  the  participation  of  the 
heathen  in  his  kingdom,  are  connected  with  a  condition,  the  faith- 
fulness of  the  covenant  people  ;  but  this  is  without  e.xample,  and 
absurd.  To  avoid  this  difficulty,  others,  as  Mark,  refer  r^lr\\  merely 
to  the  immediately  preceding  declaration  :  "  This,  —  viz.  that  ye 
will  see  from  the  result  that  I  have  been  sent  by  God,  —  will  come 
to  pass  if  ye  will  obey  the  Lord."  But  this  removes  the  difficulty 
only  in  appearance.  For,  "  ye  shall  know,"  is  in  substance  i.  q. 
"  ye  shall  have  opportunity  to  know ;  "  and  was  true  even  of  those 
who  wilfully  shut  their  eyes.  But  the  omission  of  the  pronoun 
should  of  itself  have  led  the  interpreters  to  another  explanation,  to 
the  supposition  of  an  aposiopesis,  which  gives  a  peculiarly  emphatic 
sense.  Comp.  similar  examples,  besides  the  entirely  analogous  one 
in  Zechariah  himself,  chap.  7  :  7,  2  Sam.  2  :  27,  5  :  8  ;  in  the  New 
Testament,  e.  g.  Luke,  13:9;  xup  fisv  noiriai]  xaqnov,  d  dk  iiriye, 
tig  TO  fiillov  iKKOipug  avTi]v.  Weiner,  Gramm.  Aufl.  3,  p.  478. 
And  this  is  the  more  natural,  as  it  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of 
Zechariah,  to  use  n;ni  far  oftener  than  any  other  prophet  as  a 
mere  prelude.  "  If  ye  will  hearken  to  the  voice  .of  the  Lord,  so, — 
ye  shall  have  a  part  in  all  these  blessings,  so  will  the  Messiah  de- 
liver you  from  sin  as  your  high  priest,  and  make  you  happy  as 
your  king."  With  this  earnest  word  of  admonition  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  closes  at  the  same  time  this  particular  revelation,  and  the 
whole  connected  series  of  revelations,  which,  in  this  memorable 
night,  he  imparts  to  the  people  through  our  prophet. 


ZECHARIAH  6:9-15.  63 

We  have  yet  to  give  a  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  interpretation 
of  this  prophecy.  In  the  more  ancient  writings  of  the  Jews  we  still 
find  traces  of  the  prevalence  of  the  Messianic  interpretation.  The 
Chaldee  Paraphrase  introduces  it  into  the  translation  :  xnn:  NH 
'3iiTl  ^Sjnn  Tn;'  n'oty  Nn-tyro.  "  Behold  there  the  man,  Messiah 
is  his  name,  he  will  be  revealed  and  glorified."  In  Breschit  Rabba, 
(comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  485,)  in  Raim.  Martini,  pp.  155,  759,  it  is  said  : 
"  R.  Barachias  brings  forward  this  :  God  says  to  the  Israelites  :  Ye 
say  to  me,  we  are  orphans  and  have  no  father  ;  the  Goel  also,  whom 
I  will  raise  up  to  you,  has  no  father,  as  Zech.  6  :  12;  Behold  it  is 
a  man  by  name  Branch,  who  will  spring  up  from  under  himself. 
And  so  says  Is,  53  :  3  ;  He  shoots  up  before  him  as  a  sprout."  In 
Echa  Rabbati,  an  old  commentary,  or  a  sort  oi  catena,  on  the  Lam- 
entations, it  is  said,  in  the  enumeration  of  the  names  of  the  Messiah 
in  Raim.  Mart.  p.  880,  "  Joshua  Ben  Levi  said,  He  is  called  sprout, 
as  it  is  said,  6  :  12;"  comp.  other  passages  in  Schottgen,  Hor.  Hebr. 
II.  p.  219  sqq.  104,  422.  His  Jtsus  der  wahre  3Iessins,  p.  402. 
Still  it  must  not  be  overlooked,  that  before  the  period  when  studious 
efforts  were  made  to  distort  and  pervert  all  Messianic  prophecies, 
another  interpretation  existed,  which  referred  the  whole  to  Joshua 
and  Zerubbabel.  The  way  in  which  this  interpretation  was  brought 
into  the  text  we  learn  from  Jerome.  By  this  sprout  was  understood 
Zerubbabel ;  in  v.  13,  at  rrTji,  a  change  of  the  subject  was  assumed, 
in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  union,  which  could  not  be  shown  in  his 
case,  of  the  regal  and  high-priestly  dignity;  He,  Zerubbabel,  will 
sit  and  reign  on  his  throne,  and  there  will  also  be  a  priest  Joshua  on 
his  throne  ;  "  Sed  et  pontifex  Jesus,  Jil.  Josedech,  sedebit  in  sacerdo- 
tali  throno  etjunctis  animis  atque  consiliis  dei  popidum  gubernabunt. 
Et  erit  pax  inter  duos  illos,  h.  e.  inter  eum,  qui  de  tribu  regia  est,  et 
etim,  qui  de  Levitica  stirpe  descendit,  ut  saccrdotium  pariter  et  reg- 
num  dei  populum  regant."  The  innocent  occasion  of  this  interpre- 
tation, which  was  welcome  to  most  of  the  later  Jewish  interpreters 
on  account  of  doctrinal  prejudice,  was  given  by  the  words,  "  He  will 
build  the  temple  of  the  Lord."  As  they  did  not  perceive,  that  the 
prophet,  who  regarded  the  building  of  the  outward  temple,  carried 
on  in  the  present,  as  a  type  of  one  which  was  to  be  future  and  more 
glorious,  in  like  manner  as  its  conductors,  Joshua  and  Zerubbabel, 
were  regarded  as  a  type  of  the  future  spiritual  master-builder,  here 
looked  beyond  the  shadow  to  the  substance,  they  believed,  that  these 
words  excluded  the  reference  to  the  Messiah,  and  sufficiently  estab- 


64  -  ZECHARIAH  6:9-15. 

lislied  the  reference  to  Zerubbabel,  who,  in  the  preceding  context, 
chap.  4  :  9,  is  mentioned  as  builder  of  the  temple. 

The  pernicious  influence  of  this  misunderstanding,  which  has 
the  less  ground  in  reality  in  the  case  of  Zechariah,  (the  more  usual 
it  is  for  him  to  rise  from  the  shadow  to  the  substance,)  may  also  be 
perceived  in  some  interpreters  of  the  Christian  church.  Thus,  The- 
od. :  TavTtt  ds  unai'TH  nt^l  rov  Zo^o^a^fX  nQonyogi^vti,  vi'x  uig  fiiidimo 
XfX^ivToc,  mAA'  (x>g  fji^dinoi  ttjv  rj/f/iorluv  ninofihjCpoToc.  So  also  Euse- 
bius,  Demunstr.  4,  17.  In  their  case  this  error  was  the  more  pardon- 
able, since  the  naQtniirifdn  of  v.  13,  connected  with  this  interpreta- 
tion was  favored  by  the  Alexandrine  version,  to  the  use  of  which 
they  were  confined.  The  Seventy,  participating  perhaps  themselves 
in  this  error,  translate,  "  and  he  is  a  priest  on  his  throne,"  by  xai 
earni  6  IfQfvg  ex  df^ioiv  aviov,  and  make,  therefore,  out  of  the  king, 
who  is  himself  at  the  same  time  a  high  prie-st,  a  king  and  a  high 
priest  standing  by  his  side.  It  would  be  expected,  that  Grotius 
would  eagerly  seize  the  plausible  ground  for  rejecting  the  Messianic 
interpretation,  which  was  afforded  him  by  such  predecessors.  Ac- 
cording to  him,  the  sense  of  the  prophecy  may  be  paraphrased  as 
follows  :  Sicut  domus  Davidis  renala  est  in  Serubabele,  ita  -per  eum 
renascctur  templum,  {r\DT  rnnnni  he  explains  by  "  the  temple  will 
spring  up  under  him,  under  his  feet"),  "  aijus  primum  posittu-us  est 
lapidem.  Ipse  quoqiie  portabit  coronam  principis  ct  in  solio  sedens 
simul  cum  senatoribus  jura  dicet.  Etiam  sacerdos  in  eodem  illo 
smatu  solium  habchit,  ct  optime  inter  illos  duos  conveniet."  —  In  the 
steps  of  Grotius  followed  Le  Clerc,  who,  in  contradiction  to  his  own 
interpretation  on  Jer.  23  :  5,  where  he  refers  this  passage,  as  well  as 
chap.  3,  to  the  Messiah,  in  the  translation  of  Zechariah  (he  has  not 
left  a  commentary)  makes  Joshua  and  Zerubbabel  the  object  of  the 
prophecy ;  and  with  them  agrees  the  superficial  Calmet,  who,  strange 
enouorh,  not  merely  by  the  Catholics,  but  also  in  England  by  the 
Protestants,  is  regarded  as  a  sort  of  exegetical  authority.  In  recent 
times,  Eichhorn  (Hebr.  Proph.  3,  p.  353  sqq.)  sought  to  reestablish 
this  interpretation  without  any  regard  to  the  fundamental  refutations 
of  it,  e.  g.  by  Mark,  and  by  Reuss  (I.  c.  p.  68  sqq)  This,  however, 
is  not  surprising,  when  we  consider  the  dread  of  labor,  and  neglect 
of  all  former  learned  apparatus,  manifest  throughout  the  whole  work. 
In  the  highest  degree  naive  is  the  way,  in  which  he  seeks  to  free 
himself  from  the  difficulty  attending  this  interpretation,  that  in  the 
symbolic   action  the   crown  is  placed   upon  only  one,  Joshua,  while 


ZECHARIAH  6:  9-15.  65 

yet  Ihe  prophecy  explanatory  of  it  must  refer  to  two  subjects,  Joshua 
and  Zerubbabel.  He  asserts,  tliat  in  v.  II,  after  the  words,  "  and 
place  it  upon  Joshua  the  son  of  Josedech,  the  high  priest,"  the 
words,  "  and  Zerubbabel,  the  son  of  Shealtiel,  the  prince,"  have 
fallen  out,  and  restores  thctn  in  his  translation.  Such  an  instance 
of  caprice  must  surely,  as  an  involuntary  confession  on  the  part  of 
the  author  of  the  erroneousness  of  his  interpretation,  as  a  manifesta- 
tion of  an  evil  exegetical  conscience,  deter  every  one  from  follow- 
ing him,  who  is  not  determined,  like  Theiner,  who  here  also  sub- 
scribes to  Eichhorn,  to  reject  at  any  price  whatever  stands  in  the 
way  of  his  preconceived  opinions. 

We  here  exhibit  only  a  few  of  the  numerous  reasons,  which  refute 
this  monstrous  interpretation,  and  establish  the  reference  to  the 
Messiah.  1.  The  parallel  passages  decide  for  the  Messiah  ;  in  the 
first  place,  chap.  3  :  8,  where,  as  here,  He  bears  the  name  of  sprout, 
and  where  Joshua  is  expressly  designated  as  His  type  ;  then  the 
prophecies  already  cited  of  Jeremiah  respecting  the  nnv,  which  the 
prophet  plainly  had  before  his  eyes;  lastly,  Ps.  1  !0,  the  prediction 
of  which,  that  the  dignity  of  king  and  that  of  high  priest  should 
be  united  in  the  Messiah,  is  here  only  further  carried  forward,  so 
that  Grotius,  though  wholly  inconsistent,  confesses  that  every  other 
reference  of  this  Psalm,  except  that  to  the  Messiah,  is  untenable. 
2.  If  the  prophecy  refers  to  Joshua  and  Zerubbabel,  it  cannot  be 
perceived  why  the  crown,  the  badge  of  dominion,  is  placed  upon 
Joshua  alone,  and  not  upon  Zerubbabel  also,  even  granting,  what 
is  entirely  without  proof,  that  it  might  be  at  the  same  time  a  sign 
of  the  high-priestly  dignity.  Joshua  could  not  be  a  type  of  Zerub- 
babel ;  for  what  ground  could  the  prophet  have  had  to  typify  one 
contemporary  by  another  ?  3.  The  translation  of  lXD3~"7;i.^  jriD  n^ni 
in  v.  13,  by  "  and  there  will  nho  be  a  priest  on  his  seat,"  is  in  itself 
in  the  highest  degree  forced,  besides  being  utterly  refuted  by  the 
discord,  which  would  then  arise  between  the  verbal  and  symbolical 
prophecy.  4.  Zerubbabel  cannot  be  understood  by  the  sprout  ;  for 
he  is  predicted  as  future,  while  Zerubbabel  had  now  been  active 
eighteen  years  in  the  new  colony,  and  the  building  of  the  temple, 
here  announced  as  future,  h;id  been  already  long  ago  commenced. 
Nor  can  it  be  said  in  reply,  with  Theodoret,  that  the  discourse  here 
relates  to  his  promotion  to  a  new  dignity.  Zerubbabel  remained, 
after  this  prophecy,  what  he  was  before.  He  never  attained  to  the 
regal  dignity  here  predicted.     5,  According  to  this  interpretation, 

VOL.    II.  9 


66  ZECHARIAH  7,  8. 

nothing  can  be  conceived  more  unmeaning  than  this  prophecy, 
which  is  so  solemn  and  promises  such  great  things.  Joshua 
and  Zerubbabel,  —  this  were  all,  —  shall  continue  to  be  what  they 
are  1  6.  The  prophecy  of  the  reception  of  the  heathen  into  the 
Theocracy,  v.  15,  a  feature  from  the  Messianic  time,  stands  then 
entirely  isolated,  and  we  know  not  how  it  came  here.  In  like  man- 
ner no  reason  can  then  be  assigned,  why  the  gold  and  silver  for  the 
crown  should  be  taken  "  from  the  captivity,"  though  this  feature  in 
a  symbolical  action,  where  nothing  else  is  unmeaning,  cannot  be 
without  design.  That  v.  14  treats  of  something  entirely  different 
from  a  common  memorial  of  the  liberality  of  the  generous  donors, 
(Grotius  :  "  Suspeiidentur  in  templo,  annotato  nomine  eorum,  qui  ea 
rite  dedicarunt,'^)  is  self-evident. 


Chap.  7  and  8. 


These  two  chapters,  which  contain  a  distinct  discourse,  are  sim- 
ple and  easy  compared  with  the  foregoing  and  the  following,  and 
we  need  not  dwell  upon  them  long,  since  they  contain  little  that  im- 
mediately serves  our  purpose.  The  prophecy  is  separated  from  tiie 
foregoing  by  a  period  of  about  two  years  ;  it  falls  in  the  ninth  month 
of  the  fourth  year  of  Darius.  This  date,  subjoined  by  the  prophet, 
is  important,  because  it  throws  light  on  the  event,  which  occasioned 
the  prophecy.  This  was  the  following.  The  congregation  (the 
house  of  God,  v.  2)  caused  inquiry  to  be  made  by  certain  deputies, 
sent  to  the  temple,  whether  they  should  continue  to  observe  the  fasts 
hitherto  kept  on  the  day  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple  by  the 
Chaldeans,  and  which  contained  a  penitential  confession  of  guilt  and 
a  prayer  for  forgiveness  and  restoration  of  the  former  prosperity.  In 
this  question  there  is  at  the  same  time  included  a  supplication,  that 
God  would  very  soon  change  the  days  of  mourning  into  days  of 
rejoicing.  Therefore,  it  is  said,  v.  2,  the  deputies  have  come  to  sup- 
plicate the  Lord.  Both  inquiry  and  supplication  presuppose,  that  in 
the  relations  of  the  present  there  was  ground  to  hope  for  a  favorable 
future.  But  this  can  be  shown  to  be  the  case  in  precisely  the  fourth 
year  of  Darius.  The  building  of  the  temple  had  hitherto  been  un- 
remittingly and  successfully  prosecuted.     The  new   machinations  of 


ZECHARIAH   7,8.  67 

the  Samaritans  in  the  Persian  court,  with  a  design  (o  arrest  its  pro- 
gress had  been  already  completely  defeated,  (comp.  Prideaux.)  The 
pusillanimity  of  the  returned  exiles  was  thus  put  to  shame,  and  they 
gave  themselves  up  henceforth  to  the  most  joyful  hopes  in  reference 
to  the  future. 

The  question  was  directed  to  the  priests  and  prophets  collected  in 
the  temple,  in  the  hope  that  God  would  reveal  his  will  by  one  of 
them.  This  was  done  through  Zechariah.  His  answer  consists  of 
two  parts.  In  the  first,  chap.  7:5-  14,  he  employs  himself  in  re- 
buking the  base  motive  from  which  the  question,  at  least  with  a 
part  of  the  inquiaers,  originated.  That  dead,  hypocritical  self-righ- 
teousness already  existed  in  the  germ,  which,  continually  gaining 
ground,  became  at  a  later  period  as  destructive  to  the  new  colony, 
as  outward  idolatry,  resting  on  the  same  principle,  had  been  in  for- 
mer times.  This  self-righteous  spirit  exerted  the  most  prejudicial 
influence  on  the  view  entertained  of  fasts.  They  attributed  an 
intrinsic  value,  as  a  mere  opus  opcratum,  to  that  which  had  no  mean- 
ing, except  as  an  outward  manifestation  of  a  penitent  heart.  They 
believed  merit  to  be  thereby  attained,  and  wondered  and  murmured, 
that  God  so  long  delayed  to  acknowledge  and  reward  it.  The 
prophet  shows  how  absurd  was  this  notion  ;  and  that  the  Lord  requir- 
ed something  entirely  different,  the  fulfilment  of  the  moral  precepts 
of  his  law,  without  which  all  outward  worship  was  only  hypocrisy  ; 
he  reminds  them,  that  the  disregard  of  this  requisition,  loudly  and 
repeatedly  expressed  by  the  former  prophets,  brought  upon  the  peo- 
ple the  previous  inexpressible  calamity,  from  which  they  had  not 
yet  recovered,  and  that  a  like  cause  would  be  attended  with  the  like 
effect  in  future.  —  In  the  second  part  of  the  discourse,  chap.  8,  the 
prophet  then  proceeds  to  give  a  direct  answer  to  the  question,  which 
could  not  now  serve  to  confirm  the  hypocrites  in  their  carnal  secu- 
rity, but  might  well  console  and  strengthen  the  weak  in  faith  in  his 
own  and  subsequent  times,  until  the  appearing  of  Christ.  For  the 
covenant  people,  —  this  is  the  sum,  —  so  great  prosperity  is  destin- 
ed, that  the  day  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  as  well  as  the 
remaining  fast-days,  at  that  time  observed  in  remembrance  of  par- 
ticular melancholy  events  of  the  past;  the  day  of  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem  in  the  fourth,  the  day  of  the  murder  of  Jedaliah  in  the 
seventh,  and  the  day  of  the  beginning  of  the  siege  in  the  tenth 
month,  should  be  changed  into  days  of  rejoicing,  because  the  future 
blessings  would  be  far  greater  than  those  which  had  been  lost.    The 


68  ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  -  10. 

prophet  here  also  embraces  the  whole  of  the  prosperity  destined  for 
the  covenant  people,  and  his  prediction  was  first  completely  lulfillcd 
in  Christ.  We  must  refer  exclusively  to  the  glorification,  conferred 
through  him  upon  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  conclusion,  v.  20-23; 
where,  as  an  enlargement  upon  Micah  4  :  2,  Is.  4  :  3,  Jer.  31  ;  6, 
the  zeal  of  the  heathen  nations  for  admittance  into  the  Theocracy  is 
described. 


Chap.  9  :  1-10. 

A  victorious  hostile  army  inundates  the  kingdom  of  Persia,  and 
precipitates  it  from  the  summit  of  its  power.  The  prophet  repre- 
sents particularly  its  march  through  those  provinces  of  the  kingdom 
of  Persia,  which  lay  nearest  to  Judea,  in  order  by  the  contrast  with 
their  mournful  fate  to  place  the  better  lot  of  the  covenant  people  in 
a  stronger  light.  While  Damascus  and  Hamath  are  overtaken  by 
the  divine  judgment  and  captured  by  the  conqueror,  while  Tyre, 
unprotected  by  all  its  riches,  its  bulwarks  and  its  position  in  the  sea, 
is  plundered  and  burnt,  while  the  adjoining  Philistia  loses  its  an- 
cient splendor,  and  its  chief  cities,  Askelon,  Gaza,  Ekron,  and 
Ashdod,  sink  into  the  deepest  abasement,  Jerusalem  under  the 
divine  protection  remains  unhurt,  v.  1-8.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
that  we  have  before  us  a  description  of  the  march  of  Alexander,  as 
plain  as  the  difference  between  prophecy  and  history,  which  must 
always  be  observed,  would  allow.  In  the  principal  points  the  exact 
fulfilment  of  the  prediction  can  be  shown  by  express  historical  testi- 
mony. The  capture  of  Damascus  is  described  by  Arrian  2,  15, 
Curt.  3,  25,  Plut.  Alex.  cap.  24.  The  fate  of  Tyre  and  Gaza 
is  so  well  known,  that  it  need  not  more  particularly  be  pointed  out. 
According  to  Arrian  2,  27,  Alexander  changed  the  latter,  once  a 
flourishing  city,  into  a  mere  castle,  after  he  had  repeopled  it  with  a 
colony  from  the  neighbouring  tribes,  exactly  as  it  had  been  predict- 
ed, V.  6,  concerning  Ashdod.  That  the  capture  of  Ilamath  is  not 
expressly  related  is  not  surprising,  since  the  historians  follow  Alex- 
ander himself,  who  kept  along  the  seacoast,  while  the  land  of  Ha- 
math must  have  been  in  the  way  of  Parmenio  on  his  march  to 
Damascus.  Just  as  little  is  an  express  mention  of  the  fate  of  the 
remaining  cities  of  Philistia  besides  Gaza  to  be  expected,  since  the 


ZECHARIAH  9     1-10,  ^9 

historians  of  Alexander  in  describing  his  march  throngh  Syria  and 
Palestine  are  so  remarkably  brief,  (comp.  J.  D.  Micliaelis,  p.  190,) 
and  since  in  general  ihey  select  from  the  great  mass  of  events  only 
the  most  important,  particularly  thofc  which  throw  light  upon  the 
character  of  Alexander,  who  is  everywhere,  especially  with  Arrian, 
the  chief  object  of  attention.  It  has  been  fully  shown  in  the  Bd- 
tr'dgcn,  1,  p.  277,  how  history  fully  confirms,  what  is  here  predicted 
of  the  preservation  of  the  covenant  people  during  that  expedition,  so 
destructive  to  the  neighbouring  lands. 

In  V.  9  and  10,  the  prophet  contrasts  the  inferior  blessing  of  God 
with  the  higher,  the  sending  of  the  Messiah,  at  which  he  had 
already,  v.  7,  cast  a  passing  look.  (See  on  the  relation  of  the  two 
predictions  the  Introduction  to  chap.  9:11,  &c.) 

Before  proceeding  to  the  interpretation,  we  offer  a  dissertation 
respecting  the  land  of  Hadrach,  which  is  mentioned,  v.  1,  as  the 
chief  object  of  the  prophecy. 


Concerning  the  Land  of  Hadrach. 

The  opinion,  which  had  been  advanced  by  several  Jewish  inter- 
preters on  the  authority  of  R.  Jose,  and  by  several  older  Christian 
interpreter?,  particularly  since  the  example  of  Bochart,  that  the  land 
of  Hadrach,  '^^in  "f.^^J,  Zech.  9  :  1,  is  a  region  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Damascus,  has  been  rendered  universally  prevalent  in  recent 
times  by  the  arguments  of  Michaelis,  Supplem.  p.  676,  which  have 
only  been  repeated  by  Gesenius,  Jahn,  Koster,  Rosenmijiler,  and 
Winer.  It  is  the  more  necessary,  so  to  proceed  in  its  refutation, 
that  the  invalidity  of  each  one  of  its  apparent  supports  may  be 
clearly  seen.  We  affirm,  that  all  historical  testimonies,  which  have 
been  brought  for  the  existence  of  a  province  of  Hadrach,  rest  on  its 
being   confounded  with  the  Arabic  city   Draa,   or    Adraa,   written 

Ci>fc-of  t'^'^  ancient  Edrei,  'P'^^J?,  which  Deut.  1  :  5,  is  mention- 
ed as  the  second  residence  of  Og,  King  of  Basan.  According  to 
Abulfeda,  Tabula  Sijricc,  p.  97,  it  was  distant  about  six  and  a  half 
German  miles  from  Damascus ;  it  was  still  of  importance  in  the  mid- 
dle ages,  the  residence  of  the  Suffragan  of  Bozrah,  is  often  men- 
tioned in  the  history  of  the  crusades,  and,  according  to  the  account 
of  Seetzen,  is  now  lying  in  ruins  and  uninhabited,  (comp.  Ritter, 


70  ZECHARIAH  9.  1-10. 

Erdk.  II.  p.  360-362  )  In  several  older  writers  the  confusion  of 
the  two  names,  which,  according  to  the  Hebrew  and  Arabic  mode 
of  writing  have  scarcely  any  relation,  very  plainly  appears.  Thus, 
e.  g.  in  Adricliomius,  Tlieatr.  Terrce  S.,  p.  75.  "  Adrach,  she  Ha- 
drach,  alias  Adra,  Adraon  ct  Adratum,  CccltsyricB  oppidum  est,  a 
Bostra  viginti  quinque  miUibus,  distans  a  quo  etiain  adjacens  regio 
terra  Hudrach  nuncupattir.  Dc  qua  Zacharias  prophetavit.  Post 
Christi  tcmpora  urbs  hccc,  episcopali  scdt  cohonestata,  archiepiscopo 
Bostrensi  parcbat.  Atque  quo  tempore  Occidentales  Christiani 
rerum  in  PalcEstina  potitbanlur,  etiam  vulgn  civitas  Bcrnardi  de 
Scampis  dicta  fnit."  In  like  manner,  in  Calmet,  on  Zech.  1.  c. 
"  Nous  connoissons  itne  ville  d'Atra  dans  l' Arable  descrte,  celebre 
autrefois,  ct  qui  soutint  dcs  sieges  contre  I'arinee  de  Trajmi  comman- 
dee  par  lui  mime  (Xiphilin.  ex  Dione  et  Dion.)  ct  contre  celle  de 
Vempereur  Severe  (Herodian.  I.  3,  9,  Zonaras  p.  2 16 J  Cf.  Cella- 
rius  I.  3,  cap.  15."  In  respect  to  others,  on  the  contrary,  the 
permutation,  because  not  expressly  mentioned,  needs  to  be  more 
particularly  pointed  out.  We  commence  with  that,  which,  after 
Michaelis  triumphing  in  his  discovery,  is  cited  by  all  as  the  most 
conclusive.  We  cannot  refrain  from  quoting  his  language,  which  is 
somewhat  diffuse:  "  Sed  his   addo,  qnce  anno   1768  «  nobili  Arabe 

Transjordanensc ,  Josepho  Abbassi  didici InUrrogabain  inter 

alia, nossetne  urbem  aliquam  (»^V^(_\^)  s«c  enim  Uteris  Ara- 

bicis  scribcbam. Respondebat,  esse  ejus  noininis  urbem,  deque 

ea  se  audivisse,  sed  nunquam  ibi  fuisse.     Parvum  nunc  esse,   sed 

major  em  olim  fuisse  ipsa  Damasco  referri Addebat,  ferri 

metropolin  fuisse  mag  nee  regionis,  qua  terra  Hadrach  vocetur.  No- 
biles  ex  hac  terra  Hadrach  familias  ortas  did,  multaque  de  ejus 
regibus  et  principibus  narrare  Arabes,  referri  etiam,  quod  olim 
gigantes  habuerit.     Ferri  etiam  fabulam,  Muhammedem  ex  hac  regi- 

one  ortum Jam, instabai/i,  ubinam  sita  esset.    Hoc  ncga- 

hat  se  accuratius  referre  posse,  id  modo  meminisse  audire,  a  Damasco 
versus  desertum  sitam  esse,  forte  decimo  a  Damasco  mil/iari.  Oblitus 
sum  interrogare,  qitcB  milliaria  intelligeret,  sed  pvto,  milliaria  ma- 
jora  Arabum,  19,  v.  20,  unius  gradus."  The  easiest  way  of  setting 
aside  this  testimony  would  be  an  appeal  to  the  fact,  established  be- 
yond a  doubt  by  Steph  Schulz  in  the  Lcitungen  des  Hochsten,  that 
the  person  on  whose  authority  Michaelis  relies  was  a  deceiver.  But 
the  subject  would  not  then  be  entirely  disposed  of,  since  this  de- 
ceiver actually  was  from  the  land  from  which  he  pretended  to  have 


ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10.  71 

come,  and  therefore  might  have  imparted  correct  geographical  and 
historical  information  concerning  it  Besides,  on  a  nearer  examina- 
tion his  statement  appears  to  be  true,  with  the  exception  of  his  con- 
founding Hadradi  and  Adraa,  which  can  the  more  easily  be  ex- 
plained, since  he  had  never  himself  been  in  the  place,  and  had 
received  his  accounts  only  from  hearsay  testimony.  The  reality 
of  this  permutation,  however,  appears  from  the  following  reasons. 
1.  Not  only  does  the  direction  from  Damascus  towards  the  wilder- 
ness, consequently  towards  Arabia,  in  wiiich  Hadrach  was  supposed 
to  lie,  entirely  coincide,  but  also  the  distance,  since  the  ten  Arabic 
miles  make  about  7  or  8  German.  2.  Abbassi  says,  there  are  many 
traditions  respecting  the  ancient  kings  of  this  region,  whose  former 
inhabitants  are  supposed  to  have  been  giants.  Who  is  not  here 
at  once  reminded  of  the  account  of  the  Pentateuch  respecting  the 
gigantic  King  Og,  of  Basan,  whose  iron  bedstead  was  nine  cubits 
long  and  four  broad,  and  who  reigned  over  the  Anakims,  a  very 
strong  and  tall  people,  (comp.  Numb.22  :  33,  Deut.  2  :  10,  11,3:  11.) 
These  accounts  probably  passed  from  the  Christians,  who,  in  the 
middle  ages  were  still  numerous  in  Adraa,  to  the  Arabians,  who, 
according  to  their  custom,  embellished  tiiem  still  more,  for  which 
they  had  much  inducement  in  the  natiire  of  the  country.  (Accord- 
ing to  Leetzen,  it  is  full  of  caverns.)  —  What  is  said  of  the  former 
greatness,  and  the  present  ruin  of  the  city,  perfectly  agrees  with 
Adraa,  — If  we  have  now  disposed  of  this  chief  testimony,  the  only 
two  which  remain  need  not  occasion  any  embarrassment.  The  one 
is  that  of  Theodoret :  'aSqixx  ^olig  eail  ttJ?  'Agty-^iac.  The  permuta- 
tion was  here  the  more  easy,  as  Theodoret  expresses  the  Hebr.  H 
by  a,  and  that  it  really  existed  is  placed  beyond  a  doubt,  by  the  de- 
signation of  Adrach,  as  a  city  in  Arabia.  The  second  testimcuiy 
is  tliat  of  R.  Jose  in  Jarchi,  on  the  passage:  "  Scd  dicehat  illi 
Rabbi  Jose,  Jilius  Damnscenm  midicris,  in  disputatione  :  Ccelum  et 
terram  super  me  invoco :  nntus  sum  Damasci,  cstquc  locus  aliguis, 
cujus  nomcn  est  JIadrach."  As  we  have  already  had  so  many  ex- 
amples of  a  permutation  of  Adraa  and  Hadrach,  we  can,  without 
calling  in  question  his  honesty,  confidently  reject  the  testimony  of 
R.  Jose,  who  hardly  investigated  with  accuracy,  whether  the  He- 
brew and  the  Arabic  letters  exactly  correspond,  and  perhaps  had 
never  seen  the  name  of  the  place  written. 

The  proof  already  adduced,  that  hitherto  no  evidence  has   been 
furnished  of  the  existence  of  a  city  and  province  of  Hadrach,  con- 


72  ZECHARIAH  [)-.  1-10. 

ducts  OS  beyond  its  immediate  object.  It  shows,  at  the  same  time, 
that  liddrach  cannot  be  a  proper  name.  If,  indeed,  the  word 
occurred  in  a  historical  book,  as  the  Pentateuch,  or  one  of  the  other 
older  books,  as  a  conjectural  appellation  of  a  comparatively  unim- 
portant place,  in  a  region  little  known  in  ancient  or  modern  times, 
perhaps  in  the  interior  of  Africa,  then  nothing  could  be  more  illogi- 
cal than  this  conclusion.  But  here  is  directly  the  opposite  of  all 
this  ;  it  occurs  in  a  prophetical  book,  where  symbolical  appellations 
are  to  be  expected  in  accordance  with  the  whole  character  of  pro- 
phetic representation  ;  in  one  of  the  latest  books  of  Scripture,  where- 
by the  evasion  is  excluded,  that  all  remembrance  of  the  place  ex- 
cept the  name,  had  perished,  it  designates  not  indeed  a  single  city, 
but  a  whole  region,  or  a  whole  land,  whose  nearness  to  Damascus 
shows,  that  we  must  look  for  it  in  a  cultivated  portion  of  the  earth, 
sufficiently  known  in  ancient  and  modern  times.  How  then  can  it 
be  conceived,  that  such  a  land,  if  it  actually  existed  under  the  geo- 
graphical name  of  Hadrach,  should  escape  all  ancient  and  modern 
researches?  That  the  Seventy  knew  nothing  of  any  such  country, 
is  evident  from  their  changing  the  name  to  2'idgi/.x,  which  is  by  no 
means,  as  Michaelis  1.  c.  p.  679,  asserts,  a  mistake,  but  the  original 
reading  contained  in  all  manuscripts,  which  Jerome  corrected,  not 
by  Greek  miinuscripts,  but  by  the  Hebrew  text.  That,  in  general, 
the  older  Jews  were  not  in  possession  of  any  historical  information 
respecting  a  land  of  Hadrach,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  it  was 
universally  understood  by  them  as  a  symbolic  designation.  The 
Chaldee  translates  nniiT  Xi;"?xn,  in  terra  australi,  probably  with 
reference  to  the  passages,  Job  9:9,  37  :  9,  where  jT^n  "'^nn,  "  the 
chambers  of  the  south,"  occurs  of  the  extreme  and  inaccessible  re- 
gions of  the  south,  not  considering  that  the  idea  of  the  south  here 
lies  only  in  the  word  [On.  Jarchi  says,  expressly,  that  the  figurative 
understanding  of  the  word  prevailed  among  the  Jews,  until  Rabbi 
Jose  established  his  better  view,  as  he  supposed.  Jerome,  who  here 
also  drew  from  a  Jewish  source,  as  is  shown  by  the  agreement  of 
his  explanation  with  that  of  the  Jews,  makes  no  mention  whatever 
of  the  existence  of  a  literal  interpretation.  In  this  condition  of 
things,  therefore,  we  have  the  less  reluctance  to  regard  Hadrach 
as  a  figurative  designation,  since  the  use  of  such  designations  by  the 
prophets  is  so  very  frequent.  It  is  known  that  in  Isaiah,  Jerusalem 
is  designated  by  the  syml)olical  names  Ariel,  "  lion  of  God,"  and 
valley  of  vioioii,  as   a  residence  of  the  prophets  ;  Babylon,  by  the 


ZECHARIAH9:  1-10.  73 

Desert  of  the  ^ea,  Idumea  by  Dumah ;  in  Ezekiel,  Jerusalem  by 
Oholibah ;  in  Jeremiah,  Babylon  by  Sesach.  Even  had  there  been  no 
external  occasion  why  Zechariah  should  have  chosen  this  figurative 
epithet',  still  this  would  have  been  no  decisive  objection ;  for  such 
was  the  fact  with  respect  to  most  of  the  appellations  we  have  cited. 
If  now  we  have  shown  that  this  name  is  symbolical,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  point  out  its  meaning.  Here,  however,  we  cannot  long 
remain  in  doubt.  The  correct  interpretation  has  not  now  to  be 
sought.  In  respect  to  the  meaning,  not  the  application  of  the  word, 
it  is  the  oldest  interpretation  extant,  and  is  perhaps  confirmed  by 
the  authority  of  tradition,  although  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  advan- 
tages, it  stands  in  no  need, of  any  such  support.  Jarchi  and  Kimchi 
say  :  "  Allegoricc  interpretabatur  R.  Juda  Jib'us  Elai,  (a  pupil  of 
Akibah  in  the  time  of  Adrian,  comp.  Wolf,  Bibl.  Hebr.  1,  p.  411), 
de  3Icssia,  qui  sit  acitius  (in)  gcntibus;  ct  mollis  ("j"))  Israeli."  Jer- 
ome :  "  Assiimtio  verbi  domini,  acuti  in  peccatores,  mollis  in  justos : 
Adracli  quippe  hoc  resonat,  ex  diiobus  integris  nomen  compositum  : 
Ad  acutnm,  Rach  mollc  tenerumque  signijicans."  We  readily  re- 
linquish to  both  their  Messianic  interpretation,  and  receive  from 
them  only  their  explanation  of,  the  words.  In  accordance  with  this, 
the  land  Hadrach,  is  the  land  strong-toeak,  a  land,  which,  now  strong 
and  powerful,  when  the  threatened  divine  judgment  takes  place,  shall 
be  weakened  and  brought  down. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  this  interpretation  is  entirely  sustained  by 
philology,  and,  in  general,  that  it  is  the  only  one  which  is  admissible. 
That  the  practice  of  composition  was  in  use  not  only  in  actual 
proper  names,  but  also  in  symbolic  appellations,  is  evident  from 
such  examples  as  Ariel,  Jehoshaphat,  Abiad,  &.c.  The  word,  nn, 
properly  signifies  indeed  sharp,  spoken  of  the  sword,  Ps.  57  :  5, 
Is.  49  :  2.     Then,  however,  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  acris,  "  active, 

powerful."  In  the  Arabic  the  verb  (_X:^.  has  the  sense,  vehcmens 
fuit,  diirus  in  ira,  pngna,  and  with  similar  import  occurs  also  the 
Hebr.  nnn,  in  Hab.  1 :  8,  where  it  is  said  of  the  horses  of  the  Chal- 
deans nnr  \3NTn  nn,  on  which  Bochart,  Opp.  II.  c.  826,  very  justly 
remarks:  "  3Ialim  tamcn  (nn)  referre  (id  animum ;  et  tarn  lupos, 
quam  equos  hie  6^(7g  et  acres  did,  quia  quidquid  agendum  sibi  pro- 
ponunt,  acriter  ezequuntur  et  summa  contentione."  In  reference  to 
the  word   '^1  no   farther  explanation   is   necessary,  since   all   agree, 

VOL.    II.  10 


74  ZECHARIAH  9:1-10. 

(comp.  e.  g.  Winer  s.  v.),  that  it  signifies  mollis,  tener,  and  second- 
arily, (h'bilis,  iufrmiis. 

According  to  this  interpretation,  therefore,  the  symbolical  appella- 
tion of  the  land  comprehends  at  the  same  time  the  prediction  of  its 
impending  fate,  the  substance  of  what  the  prophet  had  before  fore- 
told concerning  it.  Tiiis  must  recommend  the  interpretation  the 
more  iu  the  case  of  a  prophet,  who  relied  so  much  on  his  predeces- 
sors, siiiice  we  can  produce  from  tiiem  several  entirely  analogous 
examples  The  first  is  that  of  I.saiah  21  :  I,  where,  in  a  prophecy 
predicting  the  destruction  of  Babylon,  it  is  called  D;  "i3"3n,  the  des- 
ert of  the  sea.  Did  we  follow  the  interpretation  of  Gesenius,  this 
passage  would  not  indeed  be  to  the  purpose  ;  it  would  contain  merely 
a  geograpiiical  designation  of  Babylon.  He  translates,  "  the  plain 
on  the  sea,"  i.  e.  on  the  Euphrates,  but  this  is  inadmissible,  even  on 
philological  grounds.  It  is  impossible  that  "1570,  according  to  ety- 
mology and  usage,  can  signify  a  highly  cultivated  plain,  which  the 
country  round  Babylon  at  that  time  was.  It  everywhere  means  a 
region  which  is  suited  only  for  pasturage,  and  secondarily  a  wilder- 
ness. There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  Babylon  on  account  of  its  im- 
pending total  destruction  is  called  a  desert,  and  a  desert  of  the  sea, 
because  the  waters  of  the  Euphrates,  no  longer  restrained  by  the 
broken  dykes,  overflow  the  level  country,  and  convert  it  into  a 
marsh,  which  it  formerly  was,  according  to  ancient  accounts.  The 
correctness  of  the  latter  supposition  is  evident  from  the  parallel  pas- 
sage, chap.  14  :  23,  where  it  is  said  of  Babylon  :  "  1  will  make  her 
pools  of  water,"  D'r5~'nJX.  A  complete  commentary  on  both  words 
is  furnished  by  Jer.  chap.  51  :  42,  43.  —  Another  analogy  is  supplied 
by  the  superscription  :  "  Burden  upon  Durnah,"  in  the  prophecy  of 
Isaiah  against  Edom,  chap.  21  :  11,  nnn,  silence.  Death-still- 
ness shall  reign  in  the  desolate  land.  This  figurative  designation  is 
the  more  suitable,  since  in  the  prophecy  itself  the  calamity  is  rep- 
resented under  the  image  of  a  dreary  and  solitary  night. — Most 
analogous,  however,  is  the  designation  of  Babylon  by  Sesach  in 
Jeremiah,  the  formation  and  import  of  which  must  here  be  more 
thoroughly  investigated.  According  to  the  unanimous  assertion  of 
the  Jewish  interpreters,  -\^lvy  is  the  same  as  Babel,  according  to  the 
Alphabet  Atbasch.  Many  Christian  interpreters  have  rejected  this 
assertion  as  a  Jewish  fancy,  others  have  regarded  it  as  at  least  ex- 
tremely doubtful,  while  others  still,  particularly  Jerome,  have  adopt- 
ed it  with  great  confidence.     There  can,  however,  be  no  doubt  of 


ZECHARIAH  9: 1-10.  75 

its  correctness.  The  opposition  to  it  must  have  arisen  partly  from 
the  circunijitance,  that,  while  the  import  of  the  word  Sesach  did  not 
readily  occur,  such  a  transposition  was  regarded  as  a  useless  expe- 
dient, foreign  from  the  age  of  Jeremiah,  and  unworthy  of  a  prophet, 
and  partly  from  the  idea  that  the  Alphabet  Albasch  was  something 
extremely  complicated  and  artificial.  The  former  ground  of  hesita- 
tion we  shall  hereafter  remove ;  as  to  the  latter,  nothing  is  more 
simple,  than  ihe  operation  whereby  for  the  first  letter  of  the  Alpha- 
bet at  the  beginning  X,  the  first  at  the  end  r\,  for  the  second  3,  the 
second  from  the  end  V,  &lc.,  is  placed,  (comp.  Buxtorf  lex.  Cliald. 
s.  V  tyjnx  and  De  Abbrcviaturis  Hebraic,  p.  41.)  The  proofs  that 
Jeremiah  actually  used  this  Alphabet  are  the  following.  1.  It  can- 
not possibly  be  accidental,  that  the  name  "^^.fV^,  according  to  the 
Alpha,  tynnx  precisely  corresponds  to  that  which  is  placed  in  its 
stead.  Certainly  such  a  coincidence  would  be  entirely  without  ex- 
ample. 2.  There  is  still  another  undoubted  instance  where  Jere- 
miah has  availed  himself  of  this  Alphabet,  although  less  regarded  by 
recent  interpreters  than  the  foregoing,  while  Castalio  and  Grotius 
do  not  hesitate  to  adopt  the  Jewish  interpretation.  It  is  found  in 
the  passage,  Jer.  51  :  1.  The  prophet  there  says  :  "Thus  saith  the 
Lord  :  Behold  I  raise  up  a  destroying  wind,  'f^p^^S  ^^.f^-Sj^]  ^l^y^V.t 
against  Babel  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  heart  of  my  adversary." 
The  great  singularity  of  the  expression  here  deserves  attention  ; 
"  the  heart  of  my  adversary."  This  cannot  be  removed  by  any 
explanation,  but  disappears  when  we  consider  the  remark  of  Jarchi 
and  Abenezra,  that  both  words  together,  when  read  according  to  the 
Alphabet  Atbash,  make  D'Tt'O.  The  correctness  of  the  interpreta- 
tion is  here  the  less  doubtful,  since  the  number  of  the  letters  is  so 
great,  and  an  accidental  coincidence  is  still  more  inconceivable  than 
in  the  case  of  Babel.  In  addition  to  this,  Jeremiah  elsewhere  also 
not  only  places  in  general,  as  chap.  50 :  10,  U^y\£!2,  Chaldeans,  for 
the  land  of  the  Chaldeans,  but,  precisely  as  in  the  present  instance, 
combines  Babel  and  Joschbe  Kasdim.  Thus,  chap.  51  :  35,  'PDH 
Dn'^3  \3-w^'  —  hvi.  ^DT]  —  ^53-Si;  '^Vi^.  The  fitness  of  the  play  upon 
words,  —  the  Chaldeans,  as  the  most  dreaded  enemies  of  the  people 
of  God  in  the  time  of  the  prophet,  called  "  the  heart  of  his  adversa- 
ry," —  is  obvious.  It  appears  that  the  key  to  the  interpretation  of 
this  passage  was  not  discovered  again  by  the  later  Jews,  but  has  been 
handed  down  by  tradition.  The  translation  of  the  Seventy  :  y.ul  inl 
Tovg   naioixovvTug    XaXdaiovg,    shows,   that    they    were     already   or 


76  ZECHARIAH   9:  I-IO. 

rather  still  in  possession  of  it ;  that  this  was  the  case  with  the  Chal- 
dee  interpreters  is  evident  from  their  translation  'NntyDn  x;nx.  Had 
Symmachus  sought  for  nothing  in  the  expression  beyond  what  lies 
on  the  face  of  it,  he  would  not  have  retained  the  Hebrew  expres- 
sion (Je^xocfji-ia)  in  his  version. 

We  proceed  now  to  make  out  the  import  of  the  name  SesacJi. 
For,  if  this  cannot  be  done,  the  charge  of  trifling  would  be  in 
a  measure  just.  That  it  has  a  meaning,  however,  is  evident  even 
from  the  analogy  of  'od.  3^..  What  this  is  cannot  long  remain  in 
doubt.  If  we  follow  the  formation  of  S^^  itself,  which  in  Genesis 
is  derived  from  SSa,  to  confound,  and  explained  by  confusion,  a 
derivation  and  explanation,  which  Jeremiah  certainly  had  in  view, 
and  which  accounts  for  the  otherwise  irregular  formation,  then  must 
l\^u;  be  derived  from  the  verb  "l^'^.  This  derivation  is  also  confirm- 
ed by  the  occurrence  of  the  infn.  of  this  verb  in  Jeremiah  5  :  26, 
in  the  elsewhere  unusual  form  i]'^,  (comp.  Gesen.  Lehrg.  p.  365.) 
To  this  must  be  added  the  great  appropriateness  of  the  meaning. 
The  verb  '^DB'  occurs,  Genesis  8  :  1,  in  the  sense  desedit,  of  the  sub- 
siding waters  of  the  flood;  Jer.  1.  c,  of  the  crouching  of  the  bird- 
catchers.  Sesach,  accordingly,  would  mean  sinking  down,  and  we 
have  a  commentary  on  this  appellation  in  Jer.  61  :  64  :  "  Therefore 
shall  Babel  be  sunk  down  and  not  raise  itself  up  for  the  evil  which 
I  bring  upon  it."  —  That  Sesach  gives  a  complete  analogy  for  Ha- 
drach  must  now  be  obvious. 

It  still  remains  for  us  to  inquire,  what  kingdom  Zechariah  intend- 
ed by  this  symbolic  appellation.  Every  thing  here  is  in  favor  of 
Persia,  1.  The  appellation  itself  shows  that  the  kingdom  must  be 
one,  which  was  at  that  time  at  the  summit  of  its^  elevation  and 
power.  But  of  those  connected  with  the  covenant  people,  this  was 
the  case  only  with  the  Persian.  To  this  all  the  rest  were  subject ; 
with  none  of  them  did  the  predicate  nn  agree.  2.  This  explanation 
is  the  most  in  accordance  with  the  whole  contents  of  v.  I  -  8.  If 
in  them  the  expedition  of  Alexander  is  described,  nothing  is  more 
suitable  than  that  the  prophet  should  not  proceed  to  describe  the 
fates  of  the  particular  regions  dependent  on  this  kingdom,  until  he 
had  mentioned,  in  the  first  place,  the  kingdom  itself,  the  chief  object 
of  the  expedition.  3.  It  is  easily  explained  on  this  supposition,  why 
Zechariah  employs  a  symbolical  name  in  this  instance  only.  He 
lived  under  the  dominion  of  the  Persians;  and  to  name  them  would 
have  been  the  more  dangerous,  since  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  did 


ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10.  77 

all  in  their  power  to  calumniate  them  as  seditious  ;  comp.  Ezra  4  : 
12,  13.  The  naming  of  the  other  regions,  which  were  subject  to 
the  Persians,  could  not  so  easily  furnish  a  ground  of  complaint,  since 
it  would  be  perceived,  that,  in  case  of  a  rebellion,  the  Persians  them- 
selves would  be  the  conquerors. 


I 


V.  1.  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  burdens  the  land  of  Hodrach  ;  Da- 
mascus  is  its  resting-place  ;  for  the  eye  of  the  Lord  looks  upon  men 
and  upon  all  the  tribes  of  Israel."  The  nounJ^Eyn,  in  the  superscrip- 
tions of  the  prophecies,  has  been  from  ancient  times  interpreted  in 
two  different  ways.  According  to  the  one  interpretation  it  means 
burden.  Thus  Jonathan,  Aquila,  the  Syriac,  and  especially  Jer- 
ome, who  on  Nah.  1:1,  says,  "  3Iassa  autem  nunquam  praifertur  in 
titulo,  nisi  cum  grave  ct  ijonderis  laborisquc  plenum  est,  quod  vide- 
tur;"  comp.  Hab.  1  :  1,  Is.  13:  1.  This  interpretation  was  for  a 
long  period,  if  not  the  sole,  yet  the  received  one.  According  to 
other  interpreters  it  means  declaration,  prophecy.  Thus  the  Sev- 
enty, who  sometimes  render  the  word  by  oqai.iu,  ogaaig,  ^ijfia,  very 
frequently  by  liji^i-ia,  accept io.  This  interpretation,  from  being 
adopted  by  Cocceius  (Lex.  s.  v.,)  Vit.ringa  (on  Is.  13  :  1),  Aurivijlius 
(^Dissert.]?.  560),  and  MichaeWs  (Supjilcm.  p.  1685),  who,  out  of 
forbearance  will  not  mention  the  names  of  those  who  adhere  to  the 
former,  became  predominant.  It  has  since  become  generally  prev- 
alent;  Gesenius  (Lex.  and  on  Isaiah  13:  1),  Rosenmiiller,  Jahn 
{Vatic.  Mess.  1,  p.  174),  Koster,  Winer,  consider  it  as  hardly  need- 
ing any  further  proof.  As  we  nevertheless  consider  it  entirely  erro- 
neous, a  thorough  refutation  is  the  more  necessary,  as  not  merely 
the  correct  interpretation  of  this  passage,  but  also  that  of  chap. 
12  :  1,  depends  on  the  right  explanation  of  the  word.  1.  It  would  be 
an  extremely  singular  occurrence,  if  4<^n,  although  equally  suited 
for  a  superscription  of  a  consoling,  as  of  a  threatening  prophecy, 
should  still  be  confined  exclusively  to  those  of  the  latter  class.  Such, 
however,  is  the  fact,  and  it  occurs  so  frequently  as  to  exclude  every 
thought  of  its  being  accidental.  That  in  Isaiah  >wn  is  prefixed 
only  to  prophecies  which  threaten  adversity,  is  confessed  by  all, 
(comp.  13:1,  14:25,  15:1,  17:1,  19:1,  21:1,11,13,  22:1, 
23:  1.)  If  this  appearance  were  found  only  in  Isaiah,  the  conjecture 


78  ZECHARIAH  9:1-  10. 

of  Gesenius,  (1.  c.  p.  21),  otherwise  without  support,  would  have 
some  plausibility,  that  the  prophecies  against  foreign  nations  oriiji- 
nally  formed  a  particular  collection,  the  Redartor  of  which  was 
especially  fond  of  the  expression  i<tji5,  and  employed  it  throughout 
in  the  superscriptions.  But,  if  we  perceive  the  same  phenomena 
everywhere  repeated,  and  in  Nahum,  Habbakuk,  Zechariah,  and 
Malachi,  NU'n  is  found  only  in  threatening  prophecies,  it  is  obvious 
that  Isaiah  and  the  other  prophets  must  have  been  influenced'  by  a 
common  reason  ;  and  this  can  be  no  other,  than  that  the  import  of 
the  word  renders  it  a  suitable  superscription  only  for  prophecies  of 
a  threatening  character.  Vitringa,  Michaelis,  and  others,  in  proof 
that  Ntvn  may  stand  also  in  connexion  with  consoling  prophecies, 
appeal  to  the  single  passage,  Zech.  12:  1  ;  but  only  according  to 
an  erroneous  interpretation,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see.  Gesenius  still 
adds,  in  an  unaccountable  manner,  Mai.  1  :  1.  That  the  word  is  here 
connected  with  a  prophecy  of  a  threatening  character  is  so  manifest 
as  to  need  no  farther  proof.  2.  It  cannot  be  proved,  in  general,  that 
NK/o  ever  occurs  as  a  noun  derived  from  the  verb  H^l,  in  the  sense 
to  pronounce,  but  always  from  Xii'J  in  the  sense  tollcrc.  The  most 
plausible  passages  ar«  Prov.  30  :  1,  31  :  1.  But  a  nearer  examina- 
tion shows,  that  here  also  the  meaning,  declaration,  or  word  of  God, 
is  entirely  unsuitable,  particularly  in  the  former  passage,  where  it 
would  make  an  empty  tautology.  The  true  meaning  here  also  is 
burden,  i.  q.  a  weighty  sentence,  verborum  pondcra.  1  Chron.  15: 
27,  XB'^n  '^^L' ,  according  to  Gesenius  and  Winer,  imports  master  of 
the  song.  But  that  NU'n  here  stands  rather  for  the  bearing  of  the 
holy  things  cannot  be  questioned,  if  any  regard  is  paid  to  the  par- 
allel passages,  2  Chron.  35 :  3,  Num.  4  :  19,  24,  27,  31,  32,  47,  49. 
But  even  in  the  cognate  HN^D,  the  meanings  {to  bear,  burden')  are 
derived  only  from  XK'J,  in  the  sense  tollere,  and  not  in  the  sense  to 
pronounce.  Michaelis  and  Winer  appeal,  indeed,  for  proof  of  the 
contrary,  to  Lam.  2  :  14,  where  the  predictions  of  the  false  prophets 
are  called  Ni.ty  nix'^q,  which  is  interpreted  "  vain  predictions."  But 
it  is  there  rather  to  be  translated  ;  "  they  see  for  thee  vain  burdens 
and  exiles."  Even  the  following  □'nilD,  exiles,  dispersions,  shows 
that  mxi^/rD  also  must  refer  to  the  enemy.  The  false  prophets  en- 
deavour to  make  themselves  beloved  by  the  people,  by  predicting  a 
great  calamity,  which  should  come  upon  their  powerful  oppressors. 
To  give  to  cnno  another  meaning  is  inadmissible,  because  the 
verb  HjJ,  in  Jeremiah,  in  whom  it  frequently  occurs,  always  sig- 


ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10.  79 

nifies  to  expel,  to  disperse.  3.  The  very  passage,  Jer.  23  :  33,  &c., 
relied  upon  for  proof,  that  X^'n  has  the  meaning  of  prophecy, 
evinces  the  contrary.  According  to  the  usual  acceptation,  Jeremiah 
is  there  angry  with  the  scoffers,  because  they  presuppose,  taking  the 
word  «tyn,  signifying  prophecy,  in  the  sense  burden,  that  he  would 
utter  only  prophecies  announcing  calamity.  But  this  could  hardly 
have  so  offended  Jeremiah;  and  appeared  to  him  as  so  ungodly,  since 
his  prophecies,  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  are  in  fact,  gen- 
erally of  a  melancholy  character,  and  as  he  had  predicted,  to  these 
scoffers  in  particular,  nothing  but  adversity.  Their  wickedness 
manifested  itself  rather  in  their  taking  the  burden  in  another  sense, 
than  that  in  which  it  had  been  used  by  the  prophet,  which  was  that 
of  a  prophecy,  which  predicted  heavy  judgments  of  the  Lord.  They 
ask  Jeremiah  what  is  the  burden  of  the  Lord,  what  he  has  received 
for  a  burdensome  prophecy.  But  this  ungodly  play  upon  words, 
which  gives  a  deep  insight  into  the  unbelieving  heart  of  the  scoffers, 
could  only  exist  when  Niyo  was  used  by  the  prophet  in  the  sense 
burden.  4.  Had  Nt?o  the  sense,  declaration,  word  of  God,  and 
were  it  therefore  synonymous  with  Uii),  it  would  still  be  strange  that 
it  never,  like  the  latter,  occurs  with  the  genitive  of  the  author,  that 
on  the  contrary,  the  genitive  connected  with  it,  is  always  genit. 
objecti,  e.  g.  S5.3  Xivo,  nan  Xtra.  In  the  sense  burden,  Xb'n  is  also 
elsewhere  connected  with  the  genitive  of  him  who  bears  it,  or  upon 
whom  it  is  laid.  5.  The  sense  burden,  in  this  passage,  is  more 
agreeable  to  the  parallelism.  Xf>0  then  corresponds  to  nnun.  'J'he 
burden  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  strikes  or  falls  on  Hadrach  ;  its  rest 
is  Damascus.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark,  that  the  prophet 
by  these  words  indicates  that  a  heavy  calamity,  and  one  which  could 
not  be  evaded,  because  it  was  threatened  by  the  Lord,  and  would 
be  inflicted  by  him,  would  come  upon  Hadrach  and  Damascus.  A 
parallel  passage  is  Is.  9  :  7 ;  "  The  Lord  sends  a  word  to  Jacob  ;  it 
falls  upon  Israel."  Precisely  as  Damascus  is  here  represented  as 
the  rest  of  the  divine  word,  or  decree  of  punishment,  it  is  said,  chap. 
6:8,  of  the  ministers  and  symbols  of  the  divine  justice,  "They 
make  my  anger  to  rest  on  the  north  country." 

In  the  second  part  of  the  verse,  as  is  shown  by  O,  the  ground  of 
the  divine  judgment  upon  Hadrach  and  Damascus,  as  well  as  upon 
the  nations  afterwards  mentioned,  is  given.  The  providence  of  God 
rules  over  the  whole  earth,  which  lies  open  to  his  view.  He  cannot 
fail,  therefore,  to  remove  the  equality  which  exists  between  the  fate 


80  ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  -  10. 

of  the  covenant  people,  and  that  of  the  heathen  nations  apparently 
favored  by  him.  Very  explanatory  are  the  passages,  Mai.  2:17,  3  : 
13,  iSi/C,  where  the  prophet  introduces  the  people  as  speaking,  and 
complaining  that  the  Lord  had  visited  them  only  with  adversity,  and 
conferred  great  prosperity  upon  the  heathen.  Malachi  had  there  to 
deal  with  the  ungodly  portion  of  the  people,  who,  without  having 
fulfilled  the  duties  of  the  covenant,  boldly  insisted  on  the  fulfilment 
of  its  promises.  Hence  his  answer  is  severe  ;  he  threatens  still 
heavier  judgments.  Zechariah  had  in  view  the  true  members  of 
the  Theocracy.  He  promises  them,  that  the  Lord  at  a  future 
period,  removing  the  existing  inequality,  would  humble  the  proud 
heathen,  and  in  the  present  instance  protect  his  people  during  the 
hostile  invasion,  and,  finally,  by  the  sending  of  the  Messiah,  com- 
plete their  jay.  y]},  with  the  following  genitive,  here  signifies  the 
eye  that  belongs  to  any  one,  so  far  as  it  is  directed  towards  him. 
That  we  are  not,  with  several  interpreters,  to  think  of  the  eye 
directed  to  the  Lord,  appears  partly  from  the  entire  in  appropriate- 
ness of  the  sense,  according  to  such  an  explanation,  partly  from  the 
parallel  passages  of  Zechariah  himself,  besides  v.  8  ;  "  For  now  I 
see  with  mine  eyes,"  chap.  3:  9  and  4:  10,  where  the  eye  of  the 
Lord  is  a  figurative  designation  of  his  all-ruling  providence,  comp. 
chap.  5 :  6.  D-JX  by  the  contrast  with  hi<-\\^:  'ta^Bf  V^,  is  limited 
to  the  rest  of  mankind,  with  the  exclusion  of  Israel.  An  example 
of  a  similar  limitation  is  the  very  early  occurrence,  since  the  tribe 
of  Judah  soon  gained  an  ascendency,  of  Judah  and  Israel  as  a  des- 
ignation of  the  whole  of  the  people,  i.  q.  Judah  and  the  rest  of 
Israel.  It  appears  that  the  prophet  borrowed  this  idiom  from  Jer. 
32  :  19,  which  verse,  in  other  respects,  gives  a  complete  parallel  for 
the  second  half  of  the  one  before  us.  "  Thine  eyes  stand  open 
upon  all  the  ways  of  the  children  of  men,  that  thou  mayst  give  to 
every  one  according  to  his  walk,  and  according  to  the  fruit  of  his 

works Thou,  who  hast  done  signs  and  wonders  in  Egypt, 

both  in  Israel  and  among  men." 

V.  2.  "  Also  Hamath  tvill  border  thereon,  Tyre  and  Sidon,  he- 
cause  it  is  very  wise."  Most  interpreters  after  Symmachus  {In  xal 
iv''lfya&  Tji  oixoQovaj])  supply  before  non  the  relative,  "  also  Hamath, 
which  borders  on  Damascus,"  to  be  supplied  out  of  the  foregoing 
verse  ;  "  is  the  resting-point  (nnijp)  of  the  word  of  God,  —  in  like 
manner,  Tyre  and  Sidon."  Against  this  interpretation  there  can 
nothing  exactly  decisive  be  objected  ;  still  to  understand  biiJ^n  a.sfut. 


ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  -  10.  81 

is  favored  by  the  analogy  of  the  following /w^wrcs  ;  and  it  is  not  to  be 
mistaken,  that  the  interpretation  we  have  given  after  Aquila  (xal  ys 
'llfiu&  OQioTi&i^autxi  iv  ctinfj  TvQot;  xal  ^idav),  only  that  he  does  not 
make  Damascus,  but  Tyre  and  Sidon  to  border  thereon,  and  which 
is  defended  particularly  by  Calvin  (erit  in  jinibus  Damasci,  h.  c.  non 
immuiiis  erit  ah  ea  jjcena,  quam  dcus  injligct  vicino  regno  Syriee), 
and  by  Mark,  is  more  forcible ;  since  the  bare  mention  of  the  border- 
ing of  Hamath,  whereby  we  are  to  understand,  not  the  city,  but  the 
province  of  which  it  was  the  capital,  on  Damascus,  expresses  noth- 
ing further,  than  what  was  already  known  to  all  the  readers  of  the 
prophet,  and  is  therefore  very  insipid.  As  Hamath  is  nearly  con- 
nected with  Damascus  by  locality,  so  shall  it  be  also  by  a  common 
calamity.  —  O  is  taken  by  several  interpreters,  and,  lastly,  by  Rosen- 
miJller,  in  the  sense  quamvis,  —  all  the  cunning  of  Tyre  and  Sidon 
will  not  avail  to  avert  the  ruin,  which  God  sends  upon  them.  Oth- 
ers, as  Jahn,  regard  it  as  the  relative.  Both  meanings,  however, 
notwithstanding  the  numerous  examples  brought  by  Noldius  and 
Gesenius,  rest  only  on  a  wrong  interpretation  of  the  cited  passages, 
and  belong  to  a  period  of  Hebrew  philology,  which  is  now  at  least 
passing  away,  comp.  Winer,  s.  v.  '2  is  here  also  a  causative  particle. 
As  such,  although  the  other  usage  were  established,  must  it  here  be 
regarded  on  account  of  the  parallel  passages,  which  in  Zechariah 
have  peculiar  importance,  (comp.  Beitrage  1,  p.  366.)  "  Because 
thou  hast  made  thy  heart  like  the  heart  of  God,"  (Ti?ri  i;-''),  —  says 
Ezekiel,  chap.  28:  6,  to  the  king  of  Tyre,  who  appears  to  him  as 
representative  of  the  whole  nation,  —  "  therefore  I  bring  upon  thee 
strangers."  In  him  the  false  wisdom  of  the  Tyrians,  who,  taking 
the  glory  from  God,  attribute  all  to  themselves,  appears  throughout  as 
the  cause  of  the  judgment  threatened  against  them.  The  phrase,  "  be- 
cause she  is  very  wise,"  is  the  same  in  substance  as,  "  because  she 
thinks  herself  very  wise,"  "  because,"  as  Ezek.  28  :  17  says,  "she 
has  corrupted  her  wisdom,  that  noble  gift  of  God,"  (LXX.  8i6tl  t'cpgo- 
rtjoav  acpodga.  Jerome  :  assumserunt  quippe  sibi  sapientiam  valde,)  ac- 
cording to  the  uniform  usage  of  Scripture,  agreeably  to  which,  since 
the  blessings  of  this  life,  on  account  of  the  natural  depravity  of  man, 
are  commonly  abused,  and  made  the  occasion  of  pride,  the  words 
which  designate  them  express  at  the  same  time  the  associated  idea  of 
their  abuse,  in  like  manner  as  the  words,  which  express  their  ab- 
sence, have  at  the  same  time  the  associated  meaning  of  inward  free- 
dom from  the  temptation  inseparable  from  their  possession.     Some- 

VOL.    II.  11 


82  ZECHARIAH  9  :  1-10. 

what  differently  Calvin  :  "  Utitur  honesto  nomine  per  concessionem, 
quia  quicunque  animum  suum  ad  falkndum  applicant,  ohtegunt  suam 
vafritiem  titulo  sapientice ;  volunt  videri  cauti,  ubi  tamen  alios  see- 
leste  opprimunt  suis  insidiis  et  fraudibiis."  According  to  him, 
after  "  because  she  is  wise,"  we  must  supply,  "  in  her  own  eyes," 
just  as  in  Ezek.  28  :  3  :  "  Behold  thou  art  wiser  than  Daniel ; 
nothing  secret  is  concealed  from  thee."  This  usage  also  is  very 
common  in  Scripture.  More  nearly  considered,  the  two  interpreta- 
tions differ  only  in  appearance,  because  the  abuse  of  spiritual  bless- 
ings implies  at  the  same  time  the  deprivation  of  them,  and  particu- 
larly does  wisdom,  when  abused,  at  once  become  folly.  —  Their  hos- 
tility against  the  Israelites  does  not,  as  in  the  prophecies  of  Amos 
and  Zephaniah,  unjustly  placed  entirely  upon  a  par  with  this,  and  in 
part  in  those  also  of  Ezekiel  (comp.  chap.  26  :  2,)  against  Tyre,  ap- 
pear as  the  cause  of  the  divine  judgment,  but  rather  their  pride 
alone,  as  is  the  case  also  in  so  many  other  prophecies  against  foreign 
nations.  The  prophecy  against  Tyre,  therefore,  is  so  far  from  in- 
validating the  genuineness  of  the  second  part,  that  it  rather  furnishes 
an  argument  in  its  favor.  As  for  the  rest,  wherein  the  wisdom  of 
the  Tyrians  consisted,  appears  partly  from  the  following  verse,  where 
the  acquisition  of  immense  riches,  and  the  erection  of  fortifications, 
apparently  impregnable,  are  cited  as  its  effects,  partly  from  Ezek. 
28  :  4,  5.  "  By  thy  wisdom  and  thy  prudence,  thou  hast  acquired 
for  thyself  power,  and  filled  thy  treasuries  with  gold  and  silver.  By 
thy  great  wisdom  in  traffic  thou  hast  gained  great  power,  and  thy 
heart  has  lifted  itself  up  on  account  of  thy  power."  —  The  sm^.  nppn 
shows,  that  JT'JfyiV  is  to  be  translated  Tyrus  cum  Siclone,  com^^. 
Ewald,  Gramm.  p.  652.     "  When  the  predicate  follows  the  subjects 

it  regularly  stands  in  the  pliir.  ; it  can   indeed  stand  also  in 

the  sin^.,  but  only  when  one  person  is  to  be  rendered  particularly 
prominent,  and  the  other  is  subordinate,  as  Dn*N  "'nijni  "'JX.  I  and 
my  maidens,  i.  e.  I  with  my  maidens,  roill  fast.  Esth.  4  :  16,  5  :  4 ; 
Exod.  21:4;  2  Sam.  3  :  22."  This  rule,  although  in  the  first  in- 
stance it  relates  only  to  the  connexion  of  the  subject  and  predicate, 
is  still  entirely  applicable  to  the  present  case.  The  disregard  of  it 
has  greatly  injured  the  interpretation  of  this  passage.  Several  inter- 
preters, as  Mark,  assumini  that  no?n  could  relate  only  to  the  imme- 
diately prccedmg  Sidon,  are  embarrassed  by  the  circumstance  that 
Ezekiel,  whom  Zechariab  has  in  view,  speaks  only  of  the  wisdom  of 
the  Tyrians,  and  that  afterwards,  where  the  particular  manifestations 


ZECHARIAH  9:  1  -10.  83 

of  this  wisdom  are  cited,  the  Tyrians,  and  they  only,  are  the  subject 
of  discourse.  Others  have  been  led  by  these  reasons  to  refer  np^n 
to  Tyre  ;  thus  Rosenmiiller ;  but  without  any  grammatical  authori- 
ty, since,  when  two  nouns  in  the  same  relation  are  plaaed  together, 
the  following  verb  in  the  sing,  must  necessarily  refer  to  the  latter. 
The  true  interpretation  has  been  given  by  Ch.  B.  Michaelis.  The 
reason  for  connecting  Sidon  in  this  way  with  Tyre  must  be  sought  in 
history.  Sidon,  although  the  founder  of  Tyre,  had  been  obliged  at 
a  later  period  to  yield  to  her  the  superiority,  and  had  become  even  in 
a  measure  dependent  upon  her.  This  is  presupposed  in  the  account 
of  the  time  of  Salmanazar,  in  the  fragments  from  Menander  in  Jo- 
seph. Arch.  9,  14,2,  when  it  is  there  said,  "  Sidon  has  revolted  from 
Tyre,"  {aJiiaTt]  te  Tvolav  Hibihv  x«t  ^'Ak-ti  koX  tj  nuXai  TvQog  xal  nokXal 
uXXai  noXsig,  at  rco  imp  ^Aaavglmv  iaviaq  fjaodu  nagidoaav.)  Such 
a  dependence  is  evident  also  from  Is.  23  :  2,  where  it  is  said  Tyre  is 
filled  with  the  merchants  of  Sidon,  if  we  do  not  with  Gesenius  here 
understand  by  Sidon,  Phoenicia  in  general,  a  usage,  which  at  an 
early  period,  when  Sidon  was  still  the  chief  city  of  the  Phoenicians, 
must  have  naturally  arisen,  but  which  can  scarcely  be  proved  to  have 
existed  in  later  times.  But,  in  any  event,  it  is  evident  from  Ezek. 
27 :  8.  "  They  of  Sidon  and  Arvad  were  thy  rowers,"  on  which 
Theodoret  remarks  :  "Ort  oi  ntikai  aov  a^^ovrf?  2i8wvioi  rvv  avv  toI? 
oixovai  j-SiV  "AqoSov  tov  vavTixov  aov  nXrjQOvat  ozoXov,  rag  aocg  iginovTsg 
vaiig'  ol  8s  nagct  aot  iniaTi]fiovfg  tov  xv^iQVi]Ttxov  Xoyov  avanXriQovai. 
Precisely  as  here  in  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel,  the  prophecy  respecting 
Sidon  is  only  incidentally  joined  to  that  of  Tyre,  and  the  fate  of 
the  former  is  represented  as  interwoven  with  that  of  the  latter.  See 
Is.  23:4,  12;  Ezek.  28  :  21,  &c. 

V.  3.  "  And  Tyre  has  built  herself  strong  holds,  and  heaped  up 
silver  as  dust,  and  gold  as  dirt  in  the  street."  Cyril  well  gives  the 
sen^p  :  "Ovyovv  snBid^niQ  (prjOLV  vipriXr]v  avaanwai  ttjv  Qqtgrjv  SiSav  re 
y.m  TvQog,  o'iovtul  8s  thai  Ssirol  ts  xnl  h&qnvoTOi,  xai  Tf&aQo^y.aai 
fih  in  oxvqw^aai  —  ^yovv  xal  sTsgoig  ngdy^aai,  81  tov  av  iv  oi'xoi  xal 
aeJ^oiTO  TioXig,  TTScpgov^xaai.  8s  xnl  inl  tiXovtm  (iiyK,  TavTi]Toi,  x.  t.  X- 
The  sinful  confidence  in  her  fortifications  and  riches  is  implied  in 
the  emphatic  nS.  Ch.  B.  Mich.  :  "  His  munimentis  sibi,  ut  valde 
sapiens,  placet  egregie,  vidcturque  dbi  tarn  egregie  prospicere,  nt 
quod  metuat  in  jx  sterum  viz  habitura  sit."  Similar  is  Ezek.  28  :  2, 
where  the  king  of  Tyre  boasts,  that  he  sits  in  the  heart  of  the  sea, 
and  is  therefore  beyon-d  the  reach  of  every  assault.     According  to 


84  ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10. 

Diodor.  Sic.  17,  40,  the  Tyrians  are  determined  to  resist  Alexan- 
der, TtiaTSVortfg  Ttj  t«  6xvq6ti]tv  tjJ^  vtjaov,  xul  Toig  iv  avrfj  nciQa- 
axfvoetg.  The  prophet  has  no  doubt  chosen  "n^fD  with  reference  to 
its  other  meaning,  trouble,  distress:  ("  Notatur  munitionem  fore  in 
contritionem."  Cocc.,)  and  at  the  same  time  with  an  allusion  to  the 
name  "lif,  Tyre. 

V.  4.  "  Behold  the  Lord  ivill  give  her  into  the  power  of  her  ene- 
mies,  and  strike  in  the  sea  her  bulwarks ;  she  herself  shall  be  con- 
sumed by  fire."  Theodoret  :  "EntiSri  aqcig  aviovg  Tijg  Silag  xi^dffioviag 
atpwgiaar,  nuQav  Trjg  ainov  dwu/neag  Xrnpoviai.  Cyril  :  Oi'div  ovv 
«o«  rovg  S-ic)  ngoay-Qovovrag  ovfjaei  nors.  By  the  particle  njn,  the 
prophet,  who,  in  inward  vision,  sees  the  threatening  storm  approach, 
admonishes  his  hearer  and  reader  to  see  how  the  proud  hopes  of  the 
Tyrians  are  annihilated,  vly^  in  Hiph.  to  cause  to  possess,  and  that 
any  one  becomes  possessed,  to  give  a  possession.  Calvin  has  already 
justly  remarked,  that  this  member  principally  refers  to  the  amass- 
ing of  gold  and  silver  in  the  foregoing  verse,  in  like  manner  as  the 
second  to  the  fortifications.  "  Nee  dnbito,  quin  cdludat  propheta  ad 
id,  quod  paulo  ante  direr  at,  Tyriim  cumulasse  sibi  avrum  ct  argen- 
tum.  Jam  ex  opposito  pronuntiat,  Tyrum  ipsam  fore  expositam 
dissipationi,  quia  scilicet  quam  ilia  habeat  expositam  congeriem  auri 
et  a?-genti,  dissipabitur  a  deo."  Tyre,  trusting  to  her  possessions, 
becomes  herself  with  all  her  treasures  a  possession  of  her  enemies. 
We  can  neither  with  the  Seventy  {dia  jovto  ytv^iog  x^govofn^asi 
avtt]v  —  and  the  Vulgate,  ecce  dominus  possidebit  earn)  translate, 
"  the  Lord  will  take  her  in  possession,"  on  account  of  the  reference 
to  the  foregoing  verse,  although  zni,  in  Hiph.  has  sometimes  the 
meaning  occupavit ;  nor,  with  Jahn,  "  he  will  drive  them  out," 
since  the  following  member  shows  the  incorrectness  of  the  assump- 
tion, that  the  city  stands  for  its  inhabitants  ;  nor  finally,  with  oth- 
ers, "  he  will  make  her  poor,"  since  the  verb  never,  not  even  in 
1  Sam.  2  :  7,  has  precisely  this  meaning.  The  words,  nS'n  ^\:i  n|n\, 
are  commonly  translated,  "he  throws  into  the  sea  her  bulwarks." 
There  can  be  no  grammatical  objection  to  this  interpretation.  For 
the  verbs  of  motion  can  be  joined  with  5,  the  preposition  of  rest, 
when  the  thing  which  is  moved  goes  into  the  place,  and  there  re- 
mains, comp.  Ewald,  Gramm.  p.  605.  "  To  strike  into  the  sea,*'  i.  q. 
so  to  strike  that  it  falls  into  the  sea,  and  there  remains.  There  is, 
however,  a  twofold  reason  why  the  word  should  rather  be  translat- 
ed, "  he  will  strike  in  the  sea."     1.    The  parallel  passage  10:  11, 


ZECHARIAfl  0.  1-10.  85 

D^Hj  do  nsn,  "he  strikes  in  the  sea  the  waves"  ;  "  into  the  sea  " 
would  here  give  no  sense.  As  there  D'Sj,  so  here  Vn  must  be 
something,  which  is  already  in  the  sea  and  is  there  smitten.  2.  This 
interpretation  gives  a  much  more  appropriate  sense.  That  the  bul- 
warks of  Tyre  were  thrown  into  the  sea,  the  capture  of  the  city 
being  presupposed,  is  self-evident.  As  the  fortifications  of  Tyre 
were  washed  by  the  sea,  they  must  on  its  being  taken,  in  part  fall 
into  the  sea.  That  the  walls  should  be  struck  in  the  sea  is  an  im- 
portant circumstance.  There  were  three  things  on  which  the  Ty- 
rians  grounded  their  invincibility,  their  treasures,  their  fortifications, 
their  position  in  the  sea.  The  last,  and  indeed,  precisely  the  most 
important,  and  especially  magnified  by  Ezekiel  and  also  by  the 
Tyrians  at  the  time  of  the  fulfilment,  {xaTfyilwr  tov  jSaaiUwc,  li  tov 
Uoasidwyog  eavrov  Soxil  TiiQifosadni.  Diod.  Sic.  17,  41,)  is  here 
first  subjoined  by  Zechariah.  Calvin  :  "  Hac  circumstuntia  illustrat 
propheta  dei  potent iam,  ubi  volet  earn  nlcisci ;  quia  scilicet  mare  non 
arccbit  vol  impeclirt  deum  ipsuin,  quum  volet  illuc  penctrarc.  Puta- 
bant  enim  se  futos  esse  ab  omni  hostili  incursu  Tyrii,  qiioniam  mare 
ab  omni  parte  erat  illis  instar  triplicis  niitri  et  triplicis  fossae.'^  As 
for  the  rest,  we  cannot  with  Koster  (Meletemata,  p.  78),  derive  from 
this  passage  an  argument  for  the  genuineness  of  the  second  part. 
For  the  assumption,  that  insular  Tyre  was  not  founded  until  after 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  erroneous.  According  to  Menander,  (in  Joseph. 
Arch.  IX.  14,  §  2,)  insular  Tyre  was  already  in  the  time  of  Salmana- 
zar much  more  important  than  ancient  Tyre,  situated  on  the  con- 
tinent. When  it  is  shown  that  D;3  means,  not  "  into  the  sea,"  but 
"  in  the  sea,"  it  is  at  the  same  time  proved  that  7'n  is  not  to  be 
translated  opes,  as  it  has  been  by  several,  and  lastly  by  Forberg 
(Comment,  p.  21).  It  must  in  any  event  signify  the  fortifications, 
since  only  these  were  in  the  sea,  and  it  is  unimportant  whether  the 
word  is  h'n,  antcmurale,  munimentum,  or  Vn,  robur ;  for  the  latter 
also  must  be  taken  as  a  figurative  designation  of  the  works  of  defence. 
V.  5,  "  Ascalon  beholds  it  and  fears,  Gaza  beholds  it  and  trembles 
greatly,  also  Ekron  ;  for  her  hope  is  put  to  shame  ;  Gaza  loses  her 
king,  Ascalon  will  not  reign."  Following  the  march  of  the  conqueror 
along  the  Mediterranean  sea,  the  prophet  proceeds  from  Phcenicia 
to  Philistia.  Cyril  gives  the  sense  :  utovjo  (xiv  yag,  o'ri  yal  avTo7g 
laxwd  TiQog  ininovQiav  rj  TvqIwv  ia^vg '  eJisidrj  5i  xnfiivtjv  TS&iaviai, 
ravTfjToi  Xomov  aiKalia&'^xaai  r-^g  elnidog.  Zechariah  here  also  ap- 
pears to  have  had  in  view  passages  of  former  prophets,  especially 


86  ZECHARIAH  9  :  1-10. 

Isaiah,  chap.  23,  where  the  fear  is  repeatedly  described,  which  the 
fall  of  insular  and  fortified  Tyre  would  spread  among  the  neighbour- 
ing nations  and  cities.  Thus,  v,  5  :  "  When  the  report  reaches 
Egypt,  they  will  tremble  at  the  report  concerning  Tyre."  V.  4 : 
"  Be  ashamed,  O  Sidon,"  but  especially,  v.  11,  "  He  stretches  out 
his  hand  over  the  sea,  and  shakes  the  kingdoms."  And  he  says : 
"  Thou  shalt  no  longer  rejoice,  thou  disgraced  daughter  of  Sidon," 
&c.  t03i3  and  J33n,  "  that  at  which  a  man  looks,  an  object  of  hope  "  : 
almost  verbally  parallel  is  Isaiah  20  :  5 ;  DtD3D  ti^op  wn,  "  They  are 
ashamed  of  Cush,  to  which  they  looked."  ^JJ^P  '^'?.'?  "i?.*^,  not  "  the 
king,"  but  "  a  king,  ceases  from  Gaza,"  i.  q.  "  Gaza  will  hereafter 
have  no  king  ;  "  so  that  the  words  contain  no  reference  to  the  ceasing 
of  any  particular  king  from  Gaza,  as  many  interpreters  have  suppos- 
ed, comp.  Amos  1  :  8  ;  "  I  extirpate  the  inhabitants  from  Ashdod, 
those  who  bear  the  sceptre  from  Askelon."  Jer.  49  :  38.  These  par- 
allel passages  show  that,  by  the  disappearing  of  the  king  from  the 
city,  its  entire  ruin  and  destruction  are  signified,  so  that  this  member 
fully  corresponds  to  the  last :  "  Askelon  will  not  reign,"  (errone- 
ously most  interpreters,  "  it  will  not  be  inhabited,"  comp.  12  :  6.)  It 
should  not  excite  surprise  here,  under  the  reign  of  the  Persians,  to 
find  the  mention  of  a  king  of  Gaza.  It  is  known,  that  the  Philis- 
tines from  the  most  ancient  times  here  ruled  by  kings.  The  rulers, 
however,  of  the  great  Asiatic  empires  generally  suffered  the  regal 
dignity  to  continue  where  they  found  it,  in  the  conquered  lands; 
they  contented  themselves  with  making  their  kings  tributary,  and 
distinguishing  themselves  from  them  by  the  title,  "  king  of  kings," 
comp.  Ezek.  2G  :  7.  Repeated  insurrections  first  induced  theChal- 
deans  to  deprive  the  Jews  and  Tyrians  of  their  kings ;  to  the  latter 
the  royal  dignity  was  restored  during  their  dominion.  In  the  expe- 
dition of  Alexander  express  mention  is  made  of  the  king  of  Tyre 
and  the  king  of  Sidon,  a  sure  proof  that  the  Persians  also  suffered 
the  regal  dignity  to  remain  in  those  regions. 

V.  6.  "  And  a  rabble  dwells  at  Ashdod,  and  I  extirpate  the  pride 
of  the  Philistines."  i.inr?  is  in  any  case  a  designation  of  a  base 
class  of  men  ;  the  meaning  stranger,  which  several  interpreters  here 
give  to  the  word,  does  not  suit  the  only  passage,  Deut.  23  :  2,  where 
it  occurs  besides.  Its  special  import  in  this  passage  cannot  easily 
be  ascertained,  since  neither  the  connexion,  nor  the  etymology,  gives 
any  certain  indication.  This,  however,  is  no  serious  disadvantage 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  jjassage,  since  no  doubt  this  particular 


ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10.  87 

kind  of  base  men  stands  for  rabble  in  general,  as  they  are  accus- 
tomed to  pour  into  colonies.  —  After  Ch.  B.  Michaelis,  Jalin  and 
Rosenmijller  erroneously  assume,  that  "  I  extirpate  the  pride  of  the 
Philistines"  is  i.  q.  "  1  extirpate  the  proud  Philistines."  This  the 
prophet  cannot  wish  to  say,  since  in  the  following  verse  he  predicts 
the  future  conversion  of  the  remnant  of  the  Philistines.  The  pride 
of  the  Philistines  is  rather,  that  wherein  the  Philistines  placed  their 
pride,  their  fenced  cities,  their  military  power,  their  wealth,  and  their 
riches.  These  shall  be  entirely  taken  from  them,  and  they  shall 
sink  into  degradation.  These  words  comprehend  the  whole  extent 
of  the  prophecy  against  the  Philistines,  since  they  express  that  of 
the  whole  people,  which  had  been  said  before  of  the  individual 
cities. 

V.  7.  "  And  I  remove  his  blood  out  of  his  mouth,  and  his  abomi- 
nation from  between  his  teeth ;  also  he  shall  be  left  for  our  God ;  he 
shall  be  as  a  prince  in  Judah;  Ekron  as  the  Jebusites."  The 
ground  of  the  whole  verse  is  a  personification  of  the  Philistines  ; 
hence  are  explained,  not  only  the  sing.  svff.  X-in,  and  the  pronoun, 
but  also  the  much  misunderstood  words,  "  He  will  be  as  a  prince 
in  Judah."  By  blood  is  not  here  to  be  understood,  as  several  inter- 
preters erroneously  suppose,  that  of  enemies,  particularly  the  Israel- 
ites, shed  by  the  Philistines,  but  the  blood  of  sacrificial  animals, 
which  was  drunk  by  the  idolatrous  nations  at  their  sacrifices,  either 
pure,  or  mixed  with  wine ;  comp.  the  proofs  in  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Crit. 
CoUeg.  iiber  die  drei  vnchtigsten  Psalmen  von  Christo,  p.  107-111. 
The  abolition  of  one  particular  idolatrous  abomination  here  desig- 
nates, as  a  part  of  the  whole,  the  abolition  of  idolatry  in  general. 
D"'V^pt:',  abomination,  secondarily  a  usual  designation  of  idols.  Sev- 
eral interpreters  take  O'ViptJ?  in  the  sense  "  flesh  of  idols."  But 
VJK?  |''3n  furnishes  no  reason  for  this.  The  prophet  is  led,  by  the 
mention  of  the  beastly  practice  of  drinking  blood,  to  represent  the 
Philistines  under  the  image  of  a  wild  beast,  who  holds  fast  his  prey 
with  his  teeth.  In  this  way,  he  points  out,  that  idolatry  was  deeply 
rooted  among  the  Philistines.  "  Also  he  will  be  left  for  our  God," 
is  a  concise  expression  for  "  also  he  will  not  entirely  perish,  but  a 
remnant  of  him  will  be  preserved,  in  order  that  he  may,  at  a  future 
period  return  to  the  true  God."  DJ  is  referred  by  several  interpre- 
ters to  the  Israelites,  a  remnant  of  whom,  according  to  the  frequent 
predictions  of  the  prophets,  (comp.  Is.  10  :  21,  22,  11  :  11,  28:  5,) 
should  repent  and  be  preserved  during  the  heavy  judgments  of  God, 


88  ZECHARIAH  9:  l-]0. 

which  were  coming  upon  them.  But  this  reference  is  so  distant,  that 
the  prophet,  who  had  said  nothing  of  this  before,  could  not  have  ex- 
pected himself  to  be  understood.  The  only  correct  one  is,  that  to  the 
lands  mentioned  before,  Hadrach,  Syria,  Phoenicia.  By  these  few 
words  the  prophet  discloses  the  prospect  of  their  future  conversion. 
Parallel  is  chap.  14  :  9,  "  Then  will  the  Lord  be  king  over  the  whole 
earth."  In  the  words :  "  and  he  will  be  as  a  prince  of  a  tribe  in 
Judah,"  the  thought  that  the  Philistines  would  hereafter  be  received 
among  the  covenant  people,  and  enjoy  equal  privileges  with  them,  is 
expressed  as  though  their  representative,  their  ideal  head,  should 
obtain  the  dignity  of  a  prince  in  Judah.  (See  on  f]i^^  at  chap.  12: 
6.)  A  similar  mode  of  representation  prevails  Matth.  2  :  6,  where 
Bethlehem  is  called  the  least  if  jolg  rj/ffioaiv  'lovSa,  which,  in  like 
manner,  can  be  explained  only  by  supposing  a  personification  of  the 
city.  —  Much  the  same  thought  is  expressed  by  the  last  member  : 
"  Ekron  will  be  as  the  Jebusites."  The  Jebiisites,  the  ancient  in- 
habitants of  Jerusalem,  had,  until  the  time  of  David,  dwelt  at  Jeru- 
salem with  the  Jews,  who  could  not  expel  them.  They  were  van- 
quished by  David,  and  a  remnant  of  them,  after  they  had  embraced 
the  religion  of  the  Israelities,  was  incorporated  into  the  Theocracy. 
This  appears  from  the  example  of  Araunah  the  Jebusite,  who, 
2  Sam.  24,  1  Chron.  21,  dwelt  among  the  covenant  people  as  a 
respectable  and  wealthy  man,  and  whose  estate  was  destined  by 
David  for  the  site  of  the  future  temple.  Others,  as  Rosenmiiller, 
after  the  example  of  Theodoret,  prefer  to  understand  by  the  Jebu- 
sites, the  later  inhabitants  of  the  city  Jebus,  the  Israelites.  The 
sense  would  then  be  :  The  inhabitants  of  Ekron  shall  enter  into  the 
same  relation  to  the  Lord,  as  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  ;  the  Phi- 
listines, at  a  future  period,  shall  belong  to  the  covenant  people  as  well 
as  the  Israelites.  But,  not  only  is  there  no  instance  where  the  later 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  are  called  Jebusites,  but  this  designation, 
as  Mark  has  already  observed,  is  here  entirely  out  of  place,  since  it 
would  not  be  honorable,  as  the  context  requires,  but  degrading.  — 
Similar  transitions  from  the  representation  of  the  judgments,  which 
threatened  the  heathen  nations,  to  the  prediction  of  their  future 
reception  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  for  which  all  their  humiliations 
are  only  preparatory,  and  which,  as  the  termination  of  all  the  deal- 
ings of  God,  first  place  in  their  true  light  the  preceding  events,  are 
elsewhere  also  not  rarely  found,  comp.  e.  g.  Is.  19  :  18,  seq.  23  :  15, 
Jer.  12:  15,  16. 


ZECHARIAH  9:1-10.  89 

V.  8,  "  And  I  establish  for  ?nt/  house  an  encampment  against  the 
invading  foe  ;  no  oppression  shall  any  more  overcome  them  ;  for  now 

1  see  toith  mine  eyes."  njn  with  Sj;  "  to  establish  a  camp  against," 
with  ^  "for  any  one,  in  order  to  his  protection."  The  same  figurative 
designation  of  protection  is  found,  Ps.  34  :  8,  and  a  similar  one,  chap, 

2  :  9,  where  the  Lord  promises,  that  he  will  be  to  Jerusalem  like  a 
wall  of  fire.  "  The  house  of  the  Lord  "  is  the  temple  restored  by 
Zerubbabel.  nnv  only  a  different  orthography  for  N3S,  host.  This 
supposition  is  the  more  tenable,  since  also  Is.  29  :  7,  n^i*,  militari, 
occurs  for  N3^,  and  it  is  therefore  unnecessary,  with  Ch.  B.  Michaelis 
and  Winer,  to  take  nni^D  as  a  noun,  derived  from  !3^J,  in  the  sense 
statio  militum,  which  is  opposed  not  only  by  the  absence  of  the 
word  elsewhere,  but  also  by  a  much  more  important  reason,  the  un- 
suitableness  of  the  connexion  with  "'n\jn,  in  whatever  way  it  may  be 
understood,  jp,  in  ^5^i•r^  and  the  two  following  words,  may  be  under- 
stood in  two  ways,  either yrom,  since  in  njn  the  idea  of  deliverance 
and  protection  is  included,  or  with  Mark  :  "  absque,  ita  ut  non  sit 
amplius,"  comp.  the  examples  in  Ewald,  p.  599.  The  latter  inter- 
pretation is  favored  by  the  occurrence  of  |p  in  this  sense,  chap.  7  :  14, 
in  the  phrase  3Kf?5l  '^Si'b-  These  words  are  referred  by  several 
interpreters  especially  to  the  expeditions  of  the  conquering  nations 
against  other  states,  particularly  against  the  neighbouring  Egypt, 
which  in  former  times  caused  the  Israelites  much  suffering.  But 
the  comparison  of  the  other  passages  where  the  phrase  occurs,  Ezek. 
35 :  7,  Zech.  7  :  14,  shows,  that  it  has  a  more  general  sense ;  and 
signifies  intercourse  in  general,  which  is  here  determined  by  the 
connexion  to  be  of  a  hostile  character.  Appropriately  Calvin  : 
"  Quamvis  ergo  totus  mundus  conspirtt  ac  coeant  hinc  inde  magncB 
copicB  hostium,  jubet  tamen  tranquillo  animo  bene  sperare,  quoniam 
itnus  deus  sufficiet  ad  profiigandos  omnes  exercitus."  nnj;,  nunc,  re- 
fers, not  so  well  to  the  time  when  the  prophecy  was  spoken,  as  to  that 
of  the  fulfilment,  when  the  Lord  established  his  camp  around  his 
house.  This  is  explained  from  the  nature  of  prophecy,  in  which  the 
future  appears  as  present ;  the  determinations  of  time,  therefore,  re- 
late not  to  the  actual,  but  to  the  ideal  present.  The  phrase,  "  for 
now  I  see,"  &c.,  (comp.  "•n^N").  njn,  Jer.  7  :  11,)  is  spoken  after  the 
manner  of  men.  When  a  friend  sees  the  misfortune  of  a  friend, 
he  comes  to  his  help.  Hence  in  the  Psalms,  we  frequently  find  the 
supplication,  "behold  my  aflSiction,"  for,  "deliver  me  from  it." 

V.  9.  "  Rejoice  greatly,  thou  daughter  of  Zion,  shout  for  joy, 
VOL.    II.  12 


90  ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10. 

thou  daughter  of  Jerusalem.  Sehold  thy  king  comes  to  thee,  he  is 
just  and  protected  of  God,  uffiicted  and  riding  xipon  an  ass,  and 
upon  a  foal  the  son  of  a  she  ass."  We  cannot  better  give  the  sense  of 
the  whole  verse,  than  in  the  words  of  Calvin :  "  Summa  est,  vatici- 
nia,  quibus  spent  redemtionis  fccerat  deus  electo  populo,  non  esse  vana 
aut  irrita,  quoniam  tandem  suo  tempore  prodibit  Christus,  filius  Da- 
vidis.  Sccundo  rcgem  hunc  fore  justum  et  salvum,  quia  scilicet  resti- 
tuet  in  ordinem,  qum  prius  fcedo  et  pudendo  modo  erant  confusa. 
Tertio  acTjungit  regem  hunc  fore  pauperem,  quia  cquitabit  super 
asinum  et  non  pollebit  magna  emincntia,  neque  erit  conspicuus  vel 
armis,  vel  opibus,  vel  lautitiis,  vel  copia  militari,  vel  etiam  regiis 
insignibus,  quae,  perstringunt  vidgi  oculos."  The  preliminary  ex- 
hortation to  exulting  joy  intimates  the  importance  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  at  the  same  time  the  greatness  of  the  necessity,  which 
should  be  satisfied  with  this  gracious  benefit  of  God.  Cocceius  has 
already  reminded  us,  that  the  exhortation  contains  also  a  proph- 
ecy. The  prophet  had  in  view  only  the  better  part  of  the  cove- 
nant people,  the  true  members  of  the  Theocracy,  not  the  whole 
of  the  natural  Israelites.  On  this  account  he  gives  prominence 
only  to  the  joy  and  salvation,  which  the  Messiah's  Advent  will 
bring.  —  The  evangelists,  who  were  concerned  only  with  the  sub- 
stance of  the  prophecy,  have  not  verbally  rendered  this  exhorta- 
tion to  joy.  Matthew  has  instead,  from  Is.  62  :  11  :  sItiuts  if]  ^vya- 
rgl  2'icjv.  John:  fji]  (fo(iov,  dvyanq  Slwv.  Hin  indicates,  that  the 
prophet  sees  the  future  king  already  present,  and  about  to  make  his 
entrance  into  Jerusalem.  "  Thy  king  "  with  peculiar  emphasis  :  "he, 
who  alone  in  the  complete  and  highest  sense  is  thy  king,  so  that  all 
others  scarcely  deserve  this  name,"  comp.  Ps.  45  :  72.  The  expres- 
sion at  the  same  time  shows,  that  the  prophet  speaks  of  a  king  gen- 
erally known  from  the  former  prophecies,  and  eagerly  expected.  ijS 
not  merely  "  to  thee,"  but  also,  "  for  thy  benefit,  for  thy  salvation ;  " 
comp.  Is.  9:5,  "A  child  is  born  to  us,  a  son  is  given  to  us."  The 
prophet  here  exhibits  only  the  blessings,  which  the  Messiah  should 
confer  upon  the  believing  portion  of  the  covenant  people,  because 
his  prophecy  was  chiefly,  and  in  the  first  instance,  designed  for 
them.  That  the  heathen  to  be  received  into  the  kingdom  of  God 
should  also  participate  in  these  blessings  appears  from  v.  7  and  10. 
xn;  does  not  here  refer,  as  Mai.  3  :  1,  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
in  glory  for  judgment,  but,  as  the  following  epithets  show,  to  his 
first  appearance  in  obscurity.    p^'^V,  just,  designates  the  first  virtue 


ZECHARIAH   9:  1-10.  91 

of  a  king,  and  is  therefore  made  particularly  prortiinent  in  the  proph- 
ecies where  the  Messiah  appears  as  a  king,  as  Ps.  45  :  72,  Jer.  23  :  5, 
Is.  11:3-5.  We  cannot  here,  like  many  older  interpreters,  (see 
e.  g.  Mark  in  loco,)  compare  those  passages  where  the  righteousness 
of  the  Messiah,  as  a  high  priest,  and  at  the  same  time  as  a  sacri- 
fice for  sin  is  spoken  of,  particularly  Is.  53:  11,  "  He  the  righteous 
one,  my  servant,  will  make  many  righteous."  This  was  seen  by 
Calvin  :  "  Ceternm  nolo  hie  argutius  disserere  dejidci  justitia.  Po- 
tins  enim  existimo  hac  voce  notari  rectum  ordincm,  quum  omnia  essent 
tunc  confusa  in  pojmlo."  J'K'IJ  has  ever  given  much  employment  to 
the  interpreters.  The  different  views  have  been  collected  with 
great  completeness  by  Meinhard,  Messias  Sahcdus  Salvator,  Wit- 
tenb.  1681,  (see  also  Mark  on  the  passage.)  1.  The  interpretation 
has  been  very  widely  diffused,  which  takes  the  jjartic.  in  Niph.  as 
standing  precisely  for  the partic.  in  Hiph.  J7"'t?'i:3.  (It  is  known  that 
Kal  never  occurs.)  Thus  the  Seventy,  aa'Cav ;  Jerome,  aahutor ; 
Jonatli.  Ti^^ii ,  servator  ;  likewise  the  Syriac  :  and  Luther  translates 
Tielpcr.  Winer,  Lex.  s.  v.,  conqueror.  One  of  the  chief  defenders  of 
this  interpretation  is  Frischmuth,  in  the  valuable  Disscrtatio  de  Mts- 
siarege  Sionis,  Jena,  1678,  reprinted  in  the  Thesaui'us  [ant.)  Theol. 
Phil.  t.  I.  p.  1061,  sqq.  But  this  view  is  certainly  altogether  unten- 
able. The  assertion  of  several  of  its  earlier  defenders,  that  Niph. 
may  stand  precisely  for  Kal,  needs  now  no  further  refutation.  Only 
on  one  ground  could  it  be  sustained  with  any  degree  of  plausibility. 
It  is  known,  that  the  passive  sense  of  Niph.  frequently  passes  over 
into  the  reflexive,  which  may  be  readily  occasioned  by  regarding 
merely  the  effect,  without  respect  to  the  agent,  Comp.  the  exam- 
ples of  the  reflexive  in  Ewald,  p.  192.  We  might  accordingly  here 
give  to  V'^'^^  the  meaning  "  to  deliver  himself"  Thus  Bauer  has 
actually  done,  Schol.  ad  h.  I. :  scrvans  se  ipsum,  h.  e.  servator.  But 
the  very  manner  in  which  the  reflexive  meaning  originates,  shows 
that  Niph.  as  a  reflexive  form  cannot  always  be  employed,  where  we 
place  himself.  This  even  Ewald  confesses,  p.  192,  although,  in 
which  he  is  certainly  wrong,  he  regards  the  reflexive  sense  as  the 
original.  "  If  this  pronoun  has  more  emphasis  than  the  idea  con- 
veyed by  the  verb,  the  pro7i.  rejlcxioum  v^3J  must  be  used  ;  e.  g.  '  to 
kill  one's  self  can  be  expressed  neither  in  Greek  by  the  middle  voice, 
nor  in  Hebrew  by  a  reflexive  form."  In  addition  to  this  there  is 
another  ground.  The  reflexive  sense,  in  general,  is  not  found  in  all 
verbs.     Hence,  before  it  is  applied  in   the  interpretation  of  a  doubt- 


92  ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  -  10. 

ful  passage,  the  inquiry  must  always  be  made,  whether  it  occurs 
elsewhere  also  ;  and,  if  this  is  not  the  case,  though  the  verb  is  often 
used,  the  application  of  the  reflexive  sense,  if  not  absolutely  inad- 
missible, is  so  at  all  events  where  the  context  does  not  imperatively 
require  it.  The  verb  >'^'^,  however,  occurs  in  Niph.  not  less  than 
twenty  times,  and  never  in  the  reflexive,  but  always  in  the  passive 
sense.  Even  the  partic.  is  found  in  the  latter  sense,  Ps.  33  :  16. 
Lastly,  the  prophet  had  no  reason  whatever  to  employ  the  part,  in 
Niph.  in  an  unusual  sense,  since  had  this  been  the  case,  .y'K/l'D  was 
at  his  command,  which  occurs  in  more  than  thirty  places.  Cer- 
tainly the  authority  of  the  old  translators  is  not  in  the  least  degree 
suited  to  outweigh  these  arguments.  Their  interpretation  rested  on 
the  same  ground  as  the  opinion  of  so  many  recent  interpreters, 
that  i'K'i  J  is  to  be  taken  actively ;  comp.  e.  g.  Frischmuth  on  the 
passage  :  "  Aperte  liquet  longe  majorem  IcBtitiam  oriri,  si  rex  ilk 
salvator  appelletur,  quam  si  ipsummet  salvatum  esse  signijicetiir." 
It  would  scarcely  have  occurred,  at  least  it  would  not  have  been  so 
perseveringly  held,  unless  interprete?s  had  believed,  that  the  choice 
lay  only  between  it  and  the  following,  the  difficulties  of  which  they 
perceived.  2.  Numerous  other  interpreters  take  i>B'U  correctly  as 
passive,  and,  indeed,  in  the  sense  delivered.  Thus  e.  g.,  among  the 
Jews,  Kimchi  :  "  injustitia  sua  salvatus  a  gladio  Gog  ct  3Iagog.'^ 
Most  Christian  interpreters  refer  it  to  the  deliverance  of  the  Messiah 
from  the  severest  sufferings  by  his  resurrection  and  glorification.  So, 
Calovius,  Meinhard,  Cocceius,  S.  Glassius,  Ch.  B.  Michaelis,  and, 
among  the  recent  authors,  Jahn.  The  sense,  according  to  this  inter- 
pretation, has  been  best  developed  by  Glassius  :  {Phil.  S.  I.  1,  tr.  1.) 
"  Gaudio  hide  ohstare  poterat  miseria  ilia  atque  humilitas,  in  qua 
tunc  temporis  salvator  noster  constitutus  erat.  Hoc  igitur  scandor 
Imn  aversurus  propheta  verho  passivo  utitur  I'tii  ;  h.  e.  rex  venit 
Justus,  humilis,  pauper.  Noli  autem  oh  id  animo  concidere.  Noli 
offendi  exteriore  schemate.  Ecce  enim  salvatus  est,  h.  e.  ex  hac  pau' 
perie  et  misera  conditione  ad  supremam  gloriam  ccelestem  tarn  certo 
tandem  evehetur  post  hanc  passionem  et  mortem,  ac  si  jam  salvatus  ac 
glorijicatus  esset,"  The  objection  raised  against  this  interpretation 
by  Mark,  that  it  does  not  plainly  enough  express  the  destination  of 
the  Messiah  to  be  for  salvation  and  consolation  to  his  people,  which 
ought  here  to  be  expected,  is  unsatisfactory.  He  alleges,  that  with 
the  deliverance  of  one's  self,  the  ability  to  deliver  others  is  not  always 
connected  ;  the  deliverance  might  indeed  appertain  only  to  the  per- 


ZECHARIAH  9  :  I  -  10.  93 

son  of  the  king.  This  objection  has  already  been  admirably  refuted 
by  Calvin  :  "  Pendct  utrumquc  vcrbum  ah  illo,  venturum  regcm  Sioni. 
Si  veniret  sihi  privativi,  csstt  cticwi  sibi Justus  et  servatus,  h.  e.  utili- 
tasjustitia;  et  salutis  rcsidcrct  penes  ipsum  solum,  vel  in  ejus  persona. 
Sed  quum  aliorum  respectu  venerit,  etiam  in  eorum  gratiam  et  justi- 
tia  et  salute  prccditus  est."  But  it  was  not  so  easy  to  remove  an- 
other objection.  According  to  this  interpretation,  the  predicate 
;?K'1J  would  refer  only  to  the  state  of  glorification.  This,  however, 
is  entirely  unsuitable,  since  the  following  predicates  refer  to  the  state 
of  humiliation.  3.  Others  take  i'li'U  also  as  a  passive,  but  not  in 
the  sense,  delivered,  but,  sustained,  endowed  with  salvation.  So 
MiJnster ;  "  salute  circumdatus,  invictus,  ubique  salvatus  ah  insidia- 
torihus  suis."  De  Dieu  :  "  qurjn  deus  munit  auxilio  suo,  ne  pereat." 
Calvin  :  "  Quatenus  7nissus  est  a  patre,  ut  colligeret  elcctum  popu- 
lum,  ita  etiam  vocatur  incolumis,  quoniam  instructus  est  potentia  ad 
salvandum."  Similar  also  Mark,  only  that  he  erroneously  asserts, 
that  ;»B'U  is  here  not  a  participle,  but  a  nomen  verbale  adjectivum,  a 
supposition,  which  is  only  so  far  correct  as  that  the  particip.  when 
it  does  not  stand  as  a  predicate  in  the  sentence,  and  is  consequently 
treated  and  connected  as  a  verb,  approaches  more  nearly  to  the 
noun  in  Hebrew,  since  it  never  of  itself  conveys  the  idea  of  a  defi- 
nite time,  but  equally  comprehends  all  times  ;  comp.  Ewald,  p. 
538.  This  interpretation  is  fully  confirmed  by  philology.  Niph. 
occurs  also  elsewhere  in  the  sense,  "  sustained  with  help,  favor- 
ed with  salvation."  Thus  Deut.  33  :  29,  "  Salvation  to  thee,  O 
Israel,  who  is  like  unto  thee  ?  m^n"'3  }.W):  Up,  a  people  which  is 
clothed  with  salvation  by  the  Lord,  (nin'3  also  in  the  passage 
before  us  is  to  be  supplied,)  thy  helping  shield,  thy  proud  sword  ; " 
see  Is.  45 :  7 ;  Jer.  23 :  6 ;  Ps.  33  :  16.  It  is  well  known,  that 
ymr\  often  is  used  of  the  aid  of  God  in  general,  not  merely  one 
particular  deliverance.  This  interpretation  gives  a  sense  in  the 
highest  degree  appropriate.  Especially  is  the  reason  then  evident 
of  the  connexion  of  D'^^  with  ;'B'n.  As  righteousness  and  sal- 
vation are  ascribed  to  the  invisible  head  of  the  Theocracy,  as  the 
sum  of  those  attributes  whereby  he  makes  his  people  happy,  (comp. 
e.  g.  Is.  45  :  21,  ^'B^i'D-i  D'^^'Sx),  so  was  it  the  highest  glory  of  his 
visible  representative  to  be  clothed  by  him  inwardly  with  righteous- 
ness, (comp.  Ps.  72  :  1,)  and  outwardly  with  salvation,  which  flows 
forth  from  him  to  his  subjects.  In  both  respects  the  Messiah  should 
be  perfectly,  what  the  best  previous  kings  had  been  only  very  im- 


94  ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10. 

perfectly.  What  the  defenders  of  the  interpretation  cited  under 
No.  2,  affirm  to  be  the  only  sense  of  the  word,  is  also  included  in 
it  according  to  the  interpretation  which  has  just  been  given.  The 
deliverance  of  the  Messiah  from  death  and  his  glorification  is  only 
one  particulnr  effect,  one  necessary  consequence,  of  the  divine  aid 
which  he  enjoyed,  and  which  accompanied  him  even  in  his  deepest 
humiliation.  Parallel  is  Is.  53  :  2,  where  it  is  said  of  the  Messiah, 
he  has  grown  up  nT.ri''.  "•JsS,  viclente  et  adjuvante  domino,  (see  on 
the  passage  ) 

While  the  first  two  predicates  express  that  which  was  common  to 
the  great  king  of  future  times  with  the  best  of  those  who  had  reign- 
ed before,  the  two  latter  were  designed  to  point  out  wherein  he  was 
characteristically  different  from  them.  'J;^  is  supposed  by  numerous 
interpreters  to  be  synonymous  with  lij^,  meek.  Thus  the  Seventy, 
Tigavc,  or  TiQuog.  Jon.  |niJJ*,  Syr.  humilis.  Also  Kimchi,  who 
compares  Is.  42 :  2,  and  most  other  Jewish  interpreters ;  those, 
however,  excepted,  (which  deserves  attention,  as  suggesting  the 
ground  of  this  interpretation,)  who,  as  R.  Moses  Hakkohen  and 
Abenezra,  do  not  refer  the  prophecy  to  the  Messiah  just  because 
the  predicate  of  lowliness,  in  their  opinion,  undeniably  contained  in 
'j;^,  does  not  agree  with  him ;  among  the  older  Christian  interpre- 
ters, Frischmuth,  and  lastly,  the  whole  body  of  rationalists,  comp. 
e.  g.  Gesen.  and  Winer,  s.  v.  There  can,  however,  be  no  doubt, 
that  this  interpretation  is  completely  arbitrary.  Among  the  numer- 
ous passages  in  which  'JJ'^  occurs,  there  is  not  one  in  which  it  can 
be  said,  even  with  any  plausibility,  that  it  has  the  sense  of  1J>^ 
True,  the  Massorites  have  designated  two  passages  as  such,  where 
IJI^  stands  for  'J;',  and  two,  where  ''ij^  stands  for  ^3^^  But  a  closer 
examination  of  these  shows  at  once,  that  this  assertion  is  without 
foundation.  Luther  has  translated.  Num.  12  :  3,  IJJ.^  by  afflieted,  as 
synonymous  with  "IV^.  But  this  translation  is  now  generally  ac- 
knowledged erroneous,  and  originated  only  in  the  effort  to  rescue 
Moses  from  the  appearance  of  boasting.  It  is  the  less  necessary  for 
us  to  bring  forward  all  the  proofs,  since  Gesenius  and  Winer,  by 
citing  in  favor  of  this  interpretation  only  this  passage,  silently  con- 
fess that  it  is  not  sustained  by  a  single  example.  It  is  true,  that  in 
Hebrew  the  subordinate  idea  of  innocence  and  humility  is  connected 
(see  on  v.  2)  with  the  idea  of  poverty  and  wretchedness  ;  but  then 
the  principal  idea  is  never  lost  sight  of;  nowhere  is  a  rich  and 
powerful  man  called  ""jir,  and  yet  this  is  precisely  what  must  be  as- 


ZECHAllIAH  'J:  1-10.  95 

sumed  in  this  passage.*  It  appears,  therefore,  since  this  interpre- 
tation is  so  entirely  destitute  of  all  support,  and  since,  as  we  shall 
soon  see,  it  is  refuted  also  by  the  parallelism,  that  its  origin  and 
continued  prevalence  can  be  explained  only  from  doctrinal  pre- 
judice. The  few  Christian  interpreters  who  approved  it,  among 
whom  we  must  not  reckon  those,  who,  as  Chrysostom,  used  only  the 
Septuagint,  would  not  have  done  so,  if  they  had  not  been  led  astray 
by  their  prejudiced  predecessors.  The  ground  which  Frisclimuth 
advances  for  his  interpretation  :  "  non  paupcrtas,  sed  mansuctudo 
est  causa  Icetitioi,"  is  done  away  by  the  remark,  that  each  particular 
predicate  need  not  have  contained  something  which  was  a  direct 
occasion  for  joy.  It  was  sufficient  if  the  prediction  on  the  whole 
opened  a  rich  source  of  joy.  This  could  not  be  disturbed  by  the 
lowliness  of  the  Messiah,  since  notwithstanding  this  the  prophet, 
like  Is.  chap.  53,  makes  him  extend  his  kingdom  over  the  whole 
earth,  and  had  already  guarded  against  every  stumblingblock  by 
the  foregoing  ;?!^>1J.  Calvin  :  "Si  ergo  Christus  pauper  est,  non 
potest  suos  servare  incolumes,  ncque  ctiam  ipse  fiortre-  in  regno  suo. 
Unde  sequitur  instructum  fore  coelesti  potentia,  ut  integer  ipse  ma- 
neat  et  prohibeat  etiain  omnes  injurias  ah  ecclesia  sua."  How  far  a 
doctrinal  interest  has  influenced  the  Jewish  and  rationalist  inter- 
preters we  shall  hereafter  see.  Nor  is  poor,  by  which,  after  Jerome 
and  Symmachus,  many  other  interpreters  translate  "'J;^,  entirely  cor- 
rect, ^ip  is  of  wider  import ;  it  signifies  the  whole  of  the  low, 
miserable,  suffering  condition  of  the  Messiah,  as  it  is  more  fully 
described,  Is.  53  :  2,  3.  —  The  second  predicate,  riding  on  an  ass.,  is 
taken  by  many  interpreters  as  a  designation  of  an  humble,  peaceful 
king.  So  Chrysostom,  merely,  however,  because  he  was  influenced 
by  the  Alexandrine  version  of  'J;^,   and  so  compelled  here  to  find 

*  Very  appositely  Hulsius,  Theol.  Jud.  p.  163  :  "  Sane  agnoscitnus  paupertatis 
et  humilitatis  qualitates,  sicut  utriusque  vocabula  in  Hebrceo  admodum  vicina 
sunt,  sic  quoque  necessitatis  vinculo  connexas  in  eodem  subjecto  concurrere, 
adeo  ut  si  non  proprie,  saltern  non  inepte  LXX.  'J);  reddiderint  per  -pr^Sos  s. 
iTjaiSj  (whence  the  retaining  of  this  translation  by  Matthew  is  explained,  for 
whose  purpose  an  accurate  discrimination  was  not  important).  Velle  tamen 
vocabulorum  significationes  inter  se  confundere,  ita  ut  ij;?^  proprie  pauper, 
hie  tantum  improprie  notet  humilem,  et  quidem  cum  omnimoda  paupertatis 
exclusione,  illud  non  concedimus,  neque  vocis  ij^r  natura  hoc  patitur,  quae 
non  virtute  humilem  (id  enim  ij;?  significat)  sed  conditioite  humilem,  h.  e. 
pauperem,  oppressum,  abjectae  sortis  hominem  denotat;"  comp.  Cellarius,  De 
Gemino  Jud.  Messia,  §  13,  14. 


96  ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10. 

something  corresponding  to  ngavg  :  Ov^]  ligfiara  ilavvbiv  wg  ol  Xomol 
ffaadelg,  ov  cpogovg  anairav,  ov  ao^wv  kuI  dogvqiOQovg  nfQidywv,  alXu 
noXXijV  xi]V  inuUiiav  yMvriv&iv  inidsiy.vvfiBvog.  {Opp.  ed.  Francof. 
t.  I.  N.  T.  p.  718.)  Kimchi:  "  Insidens  super  asino,  non  prcB 
inopia,  quia  totus  viundus  in  potestate  ejus  est,  sed  pra  mansuetudine 
sedebit  super  asino."  Generally  all  those  Jewish  interpreters  who 
adopt  the  Messianic  interpretation,  and  with  them  Frischmuth.  Gro- 
tius :  "  7c?  7ion  tantum  signijicabat  modestiam  ipsius,  sed  et  pads 
studiiim  ;  nam  bello  armantur  cqui ;  asinus  pacis  animal."  Like- 
wise all  rationalists,  without  exception,  whom  Jahn  also  in  contra- 
diction to  himself,  since  he  gives  the  true  meaning  of  \Jj;,  has  been 
induced  to  follow.  In  favor  of  this  interpretation,  it  has  been  urged, 
that  the  ass  in  the  East  is  altogether  a  different  animal  from  what  he 
is  with  us;  that  in  the  Scripture  even  the  most  eminent  men  appear 
as  riding  on  asses,  and  that  this  is  still  the  case,  according  to  the  tes- 
timony of  travellers.  But  it  is  evident  from  the  following  reasons, 
that  this  interpretation  is  inadmissible,  and  that  riding  on  an  ass 
signifies  rather  the  low  condition  of  the  king.  (Calvin :  "  Quasi 
diceref,  regem,  de  quo  loquitur,  non  fore  magnijico  ct  splcndido  ap- 
paratu  insigncm,  ut  solent  esse  terreni  principes,  sed  quasi  sordido 
habitu,  aid  saltern  vulgari,  ut  nihil  diffcrat  a  plebejo  quopiam  ct 
ignobili.")  1.  This  view  is  favored  by  the  very  connexion  in  which 
"•J^  stands.  Mark  very  justly  observes  :  "  Alter  hujus  regis  charac- 
ter externus  est  specialis,  ex  priori  generali  Jluens."  If  now  the 
translation  of 'J;;  by  7neck  is  inadmissible,  then  riding  on  an  ass  can- 
not designate  one  particular  manifestation  of  humility  and  meekness, 
but  rather  that  of  lowliness  and  inferiority.  2.  It  is  indeed  true, 
that  the  ass  in  the  East  is  of  a  nobler  nature,  and  therefore  more 
esteemed  than  with  us.  But  still  he  ever  remains  an  ass,  and  can- 
not rise  to  the  dignity  of  a  horse.  Since  the  appearance  of  Michae- 
lis's  History  of  the  Horse  and  of  the  breeding  of  Horses  in  Palestine, 
(hinter  Th.  3,  von  d.  Mos.  R.)  it  has  no  longer  been  customary  to 
appeal  to  the  passages  of  Scripture,  in  which  distinguished  persons 
appear  as  riding  upon  asses.  During  the  dominion  of  the  Judges 
the  horse  had  not  yet  been  brought  into  use  among  the  Israelites, 
therefore  even  men  of  rank  made  use  of  the  ass  for  riding.  With 
the  rise  of  the  regal  dominion,  first  mules  and  then  horses  came  into 
use.  From  this  period,  particularly  from  the  reign  of  Solomon,  we 
no  longer  find  even  a  single  example  of  a  royal,  or,  in  general,  of  a 
very  eminent  person  riding  on  an  ass.     And  yet  examples  of  this 


ZECHARIAH  9:1-10.  97 

date  would  alone  be  of  importance  in  the  present  instance.  With 
respect  to  the  accounts  of  recent  travellers,  it  is  to  be  considered, 
that  they  generally  speak  of  the  ass  only  relatively  with  reference 
to  the  extreme  contempt  in  which  he  is  held  by  us.  When  they 
relate,  that  in  the  East  even  distinguished  women  are  accustomed 
to  use  him,  nothing  can  be  inferred  in  reference  to  this  passage  ; 
that  there  is  another  reason  for -this  than  the  nobleness  of  the  ass, 
is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  this  also  happens  among  us,  notwith- 
standing he  is  the  object  of  the  greatest  contempt ;  that  even  the 
higher  officers  in  particular  regions  of  the  East,  according  to  Char- 
din's  account  of  the  lawyers  in  Persia,  make  use  of  the  ass  for  rid- 
ing, can  only  prove  that  this  practice  is  not  there,  as  with  us,  ridicu- 
lous. It  is  explained  by  the  circumstance,  that  the  ass  in  the  East 
runs  tolerably  fast,  is  better  suited  than  the  horse  for  riding,  es- 
pecially on  the  mountains,  on  account  of  his  being  mo-re  surefooted, 
and  moreover  is  easily  kept,  and  with  very  little  expense.  Of  a 
king  who  generally  rode  upon  an  ass,  our  accounts  of  the  Oriental 
ass,  which  are  particularly  full  (comp.  the  proofs  e.  g.  in  Jahn, 
Arch.  1,  p.  275  seq.  in  the  Goth.  bibl.  Encycl.  and  in  Winer's  Re- 
allex.  s.  v.),  do  not  afford  a  single  example;  nor  an  instance  where 
a  magistrate  of  a  higher  order  mounted  an  ass  on  a  solemn  occa- 
sion, though  here  it  is  to  be  well  observed,  that  riding  on  the  ass  is 
predicated  of  the  king,  as  king.  On  the  contrary,  proofs  are  not 
wanting,  that  the  ass  in  the  East  also  shares  in  a  measure  in  the 
contempt,  in  which  his  more  unfortunate  brother  in  the  West  is 
held.  The  very  etymology  of  jinx,  laziness,  (comp.  Ges.  Thes.  s.  v.) 
expresses  this  contempt.  A  proof  drawn  from  the  most  ancient  time 
is  furnished  by  Gen.  49 :  13.  When  Issachar  is  there  called  "  an 
ass,"  the  tertium  comparationis,  as  the  context  shows,  is  plainly,  not 
merely  strength  of  bones,  but  likewise  that  laziness,  which  will  not 
suffer  its  repose  to  be  disturbed  at  any  price,  and  patiently  endures 
whatever  burden  is  imposed  upon  it.  Still  more  provokingly  is  the 
honor  of  the  ass  attacked  by  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  chap.  23  :  25, 
"  To  the  ass  belongs  his  fodder,  whip,  and  burden."  Mohammed  says, 
"  The  voice  of  the  ass  is  the  most  abominable  of  all,  yea  it  is  the 
voice  of  the  Devil,"  (comp.  Herbelot,  Bibl.  Or.  s.  v.  Hemor.)  The 
ancient  Egyptians  asserted,  that  the  evil  god,  Typhon,  was  like  an 
ass,  and  that  this  animal  was  peculiarly  agreeable  to  him,  (Jablons- 
hy,  Pantheon  jEg.  III.  45.)  That  Christians  and  Jews  in  Egypt, 
by  way  of  degradation,  are  confined  to  the  use  of  the  ass,  while  the 

VOL.   II.  13 


98  ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10. 

horse  is  reserved  only  for  the  Mahommedans,  is  well  known.  Thg 
extravagance  of  the  prevailing  view  of  the  Oriental  dignity  of  the  ass, 
appears  especially  from  King  Sapor's  mockery  of  the  Messiah  of 
the  Jews  riding  on  the  ass,  comp.  Sanhedrin  XI.  fol.  98  :  "  Dixit 
rex  Sopores  Rab.  Samueli :  Dicitis  Messiam  super  asino  venturtim. 
Ego  mitiam  isti  cqnum  splendidum,  qtiem  habeo."  —  Finally,  an  ob- 
servation of  Mark  is  worthy  of  attention  :  "  Multum  differt  asinus 
prcestans,  insessioni  asmetus,  atque  decenti  ephippio  et  ornamentis 
instructus  pretiosis,  a  qualicunque  vili  et  indomito^"  &c.  But, 
should  any  doubt  remain  respecting  the  import  of  riding  on  the 
ass,  it  must  surely  vanish,  when  we  look  at  the  fulfilment.  We  can 
scarcely  conceive  of  any  thing  more  humble,  than  the  entrance  of 
Christ  into  Jerusalem.  The  city,  into  which  David  and  Solomon 
had  so  often  rode  on  mules  or  horses  splendidly  adorned,  attended 
by  a  multitude  of  proud  horsemen,  the  Lord  entered  on  a  borrowed 
ass,  which  had  never  yet  been  rode ;  the  poor  garments  of  his  dis- 
ciples supplied  the  place  of  the  usual  covering  ;  his  train  consisted 
of  those,  who  were  regarded  by  the  world  as  the  people  and  rabble. 
In  every  feature  of  the  symbolic  action  is  manifested  the  design  of 
the  Lord  to  represent  his  kingdom  as  destitute  of  all  worldly  splen- 
dor, as  poor  and  lovviy ;  so  that  Heumann  on  John  12  :  15,  justly 
remarks :  "  This  deed  of  the  Lord  can  be  regarded  as  an  ironia 
realis,  whereby  the  false  imagination  of  the  Jews  respecting  the 
Messiah's  kingdom  was  derided." 

The  two  members,  "  he  rides  on  an  ass,"  and  "  on  a  young  ass, 
z,  foal  of  the  she  asses,"  sustain  to  each  other  the  relation  of  a  cli- 
max. It  is  a  great  sign  of  poverty  and  abasement  when  a  king 
rides  on  an  ass,  in  general ;  but  it  is  a  far  greater  one,  when  the 
animal  is  young  and  has  never  yet  been  rode.  This  interpretation 
is  plainly  grounded  in  the  words.  Without  it  the  last  proposition 
has  no  meaning.  Vau  often  stands  in  climaxes,  e.  g.  1  Kings  8  :  27. 
"  Behold  the  heaven,  and  the  heaven  of  heavens,  contain  thee  not." 
Prov.  6  :  16.  "  Six  things  and  seven,"  for,  yea  seven  ;  comp.  other 
examples  in  Ewald,  p.  654  ;  Winer  s.  v.  'yy_,  signifies  of  itself  a 
young  ass.  Partly,  however,  because  the  word  had  gradually  come 
to  be  used  in  a  more  general  sense,  partly  because  the  youth  of  the 
animal  was  here  especially  to  be  brought  into  view,  the  prophet  still 
subjoins  nijh«~J3-  The  plur.  ni'JnN  has  here  led  to  strange  inter- 
pretations. That  of  Michaelis,  Bauer,  and  Jahn,  borders  on  the 
ridiculous,  according  to  which,  '*  a  foal  of  the  she  asses,"  signifies, 


ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10.  99 

"  a  foal  of  a  good  stock,"  whose  mother  is  known  for  some  generations 
back  !  Of  the  genealogy  of  asses  hitherto,  at  least,  no  trace  has  been 
found  ;  but,  were  it  otherwise,  and  could  it  at  the  same  time  be 
shown  that  regard  was  paid  not  to  the  male,  but  only  to  the  female 
ancestors,  still  this  sense  would  be  directly  opposed  to  the  design  of 
the  passage,  which  is  to  represent  the  lowly  condition  of  the  king. 
Others,  as  Grotius  and  Ammon  :  "  non  mulo,  sed  asino  vectus,  tarn 
ex  patre  quam  ex  matre,"  as  though  "non  and  "VV^  did  not  entirely 
exclude  the  mule,  and  as  though  the  |1/N  no  less  designated  the 
male  than  the  female  ass.  The  plural  is  not  seldom  placed  where 
only  one  undetermined  individual,  out  of  a  multitude,  is  meant,  and 
where  it  is  not  important  to  be  more  definite  ;  comp.  Ewald,  p.  584. 
Thus  e.  g.  Gen.  21 :  7,  "  who  would  have  said  to  Abraham,  Sarah 
gives  suck  to  sons,"  D'jn.  Sarah  had  only  one  son,  the  number 
however  of  her  children  was  not  here  important,  but  only  the  fact 
of  her  becoming  fruitful,  and  this  was  rendered  the  more  striking 
by  the  use  of  the  plural.  Completely  analogous,  however,  is  the 
frequently  occurring  "'P^STl^  Jilius  bourn,  for  vitulus  bovinus,  also 
y^:i  |.5  h)X  and  "ip;3  |3  ns.  Likewise  ninx. -I'p?,  Judges  14  :  5. 
In  the  passage  before  us  only  the  relation  was  considered,  not  the 
other-  exponent  of  this  relation  ;  this,  therefore,  could  be  indefinitely 
and  generally  designated.  The  comparison  of  "^pprj?  shows,  that 
by  mjnN-|3  an  ass  is  designated,  whose  relation  to  his  mother  was 
the  most  important  thing  to  be  considered.  For  the  same  reason  as 
here,  viz.  in  order  the  more  strongly  to  express  the  mean  condition 
of  the  king,  by  the  Evangelists,  also,  the  youth  of  the  ass  is  carefully 
exhibited.  John  :  ovdoiov  :  Mark  11  :  12,  nwXov,  ecp  ov  ovdslt;  uv&ga- 
TiMV  xsxd&ixs.  Luke  19  :  30,  icp  oV  ovdslg  nomoTS  av&QcancDV  ixd&tas, 
That  there  must  be  a  reason  for  this,  interpreters  have  always  per- 
ceived. In  discovering  it,  however,  they  have  not,  for  the  most 
part,  been  very  successful.  Justin  and  several  later  fathers,  whom 
Paulus  is  strangely  inclined  to  follow,  found  in  the  she  ass  a  type  of 
the  Jewish  people  ;  in  the  ass,  which  had  not  been  rode,  a  symbol 
of  the  heathen.  More  plausibly  Bengel,  after  Bochart  and  others  : 
"Integra  sint  oportet  a  miasmafis  corporum  peccaminosorum,  qucB 
Chrisio  inserviunt."  But,  besides  that  this  feature  would  not  here 
be  suitable,  where  every  thing  points  to  the  extreme  humiliation  of 
the  king,  this  reference  must  be  rejected,  because  it  disregards  the 
passage  of  Zechariah,  which  the  Lord  so  plainly  had  in  view  during 
the  whole  transaction.     According  to  the  general  opinion  of  the 


1 00  ZECH ARIAH  9  :  1  -  10. 

older  and  later  interpreters,  vau  has  here  the  sense  of  namely,  and 
therefore  in  both  members  one  and  the  same  ass  is  spoken  of.  This 
meaning  might,  if  necessary,  be  justified  on  grammatical  principles  ; 
for,  although  vau  never  occurs  precisely  in  the  sense  namely,  (see 
Evv.  1.  c.)yet,  in  many  instances,  though  retaining  its  ordinary  mean- 
ing, it  can  be  translated  by  et  quidem.  Still,  however,  this  interpreta- 
tion would  never  have  arisen,  if  interpreters,  proceeding  on  the  sup- 
position that  the  passage  relates  immediately  and  exclusively  to  the 
entrance  of  Christ  into  Jerusalem,  and  observing  that  only  one  ass 
is  mentioned  by  three  of  the  Evangelists,  had  not  feared  that  proph- 
ecy and  fulfilment  might  be  involved  in  contradiction.  The  former 
supposition,  however,  is  plainly  erroneous.  The  riding  on  the  ass, 
is  here,  in  the  first  instance,  a  mere  individualization  of  the  forego- 
ing 'J;'^.  If  nov/,  it  were  a  bare  synonymous  parallelism,  the  sup- 
position, that,  in  both  members,  one  and  the  same  ass  is  spoken  of 
would  be  utterly  untenable.  When  it  is  said,  Gen.  49  :  11,  of  Ju- 
dah,  "  He  binds  his  ass  to  the  vine,  the  foal  of  his  she  ass  to  the 
choice  vine,  he  washes  his  garment  in  wine,  his  dress  in  the  blood 
of  grapes";  who  would  not  regard  as  ridiculous  the  assertion,  that 
"the  ass"  and  "the  ass's  foal"  are  the  same  individual,  "the 
vine"  and  "the  choice  vine"  one  and  the  same,  "  the  blood  of 
grapes  "  and  "  the  wine  "  the  same  portion  of  wine,  "  garment " 
and  "dress"  one  and  the  same  piece  of  clothing.  But  this  suppo- 
sition must  appear  the  more  inadmissible  in  this  passage,  since,  as 
we  have  shown,  it  contains  a  climax ;  as  the  prophet  first  designates 
the  low  condition  of  the  Messiah,  by  his  riding  either  on  an  ass  in 
general,  or  on  a  full-grown  ass,  and  then  more  strongly  by  his  riding 
on  a  young  one,  which  had  never  been  rode  ;  and  to  this  must  be 
added,  that  the  repetition  of  Sj;  does  not  accord  with  the  supposition 
that  the  vau  is  exegetical.  It  can  scarcely  be  denied,  that  the  Lord 
himself  has  confirmed  our  view  by  the  manner  in  which  the  symbolic 
action  was  performed,  which  should,  as  it  were,  embody  the  figura- 
tive representation  of  Zechariah.  It  cannot  otherwise  be  explained 
why  he  commanded,  according  to  Matthew,  that  not  only  the  young 
ass,  but  also  the  she  ass  should  be  brought.  He  could  mount  only 
one  of  the  two  animals.  For  the  change,  as  Bochart  has  already 
remarked,  (Hieroz.  2  :  17,)  would  have  been  unbecoming  in  so 
short  a  distance.  He  chose  the  young  ass,  because  in  Zechariah 
this  was  the  symbol  of  the  deepest  humiliation.  The  she  ass,  how- 
ever must  accompany  it,  in  order  fully  to  represent  the  image  of 


ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10.  101 

Zechariah,  and  to  make  visible  the  climax,  which  he  had  employed. 
That  the  she  ass  made  a  necessary  part  of  the  symbolic  action,  and 
was  not  taken  along  for  some  subordinate  object,  —  that  the  foal 
might  the  more  readily  follow,  as  most  interpreters  suppose,  —  is 
evident  from  the  words  of  Matthew,  v.  7  :  ""Hynyov  ti]v  ovov  y.al  xov 
nwXov,  Kol  i7ii&i]xav  inuva  avjwv  tot  ifidna  avxwv  aal  eTtsxu&tasv  inavbi 
aiiruv.  Otherwise,  even  were  we  to  refer  the  second  avTwv  to  the 
garments,  (Theophylact :  ov^i  twv  8vo  vno^vylmv,  uXltk  tuv  Ifiariwv,) 
an  interpretation  which  could  have  arisen  only  from  embarrassment, 
still  the  first  airoiv  would  remain  inexplicable.  The  usual  expedi- 
ent that  the  p/wr.  stands  for  the  sing.,  is  scarcely  tenable.  In  sup- 
port of  it,  examples  are  appealed  to  like  those  cited  at  p.  99.  But 
these  are  not  to  the  purpose ;  there  the  plur.  is  used,  because  a  more 
accurate  determination  of  the  particular  subject  was  unimportant; 
and  for  this  usage  not  a  few  examples  can  be  cited  from  the  New 
Testament  also,  (comp.  Winer,  Gramm.  p.  149.)  Here,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  was  in  the  highest  degree  necessary  to  be  definite,  if  the 
Evangelist  wished  to  express  that  the  Lord  rode  only  on  the  foal. 
The  use  of  the  plural  can,  therefore,  have  no  other  object,  than  to 
show  that  both  animals  were  destined  for  the  use  of  the  Lord ;  so 
that  with  the  one,  the  other  also,  as  it  were,  was  covered  with  gar- 
ments and  mounted.  That  the  other  Evangelists  do  not  indeed  men- 
tion the  she  ass  can  prove  nothing.  John  narrates,  in  general,  with 
extreme  brevity,  and  omits  all  subordinate  circumstances.  He  pre- 
supposes the  facts  to  be  known,  and  only  subjoins  the  remark,  that 
the  reference  of  the  symbolic  action  to  the  Old  Testament  prophe- 
cy, was  first  made  clear  to  the  disciples  after  the  glorification  of  the 
Lord.  Mark  and  Luke  entirely  omit  the  reference  to  the  prophecy, 
which  Matthew,  in  accordance  with  the  object,  and  uniform  charac- 
ter of  his  Gospel,  (comp.  Hug,  Einl.  2,  p.  7  sqq.,  ed.  2,)  renders 
especially  prominent.  Under  these  circumstances  the  mention  of 
the  she  ass  would  have  been  inappropriate ;  since  the  design  of  her 
accompanying  the  foal  would  be  evident  only  from  the  reference  to 
the  prophecy ;  far  more  important  was  it  to  extol  the  wonderful  cir- 
cumstances with  which  the  event  was  attended. 

V.  10.  "  And  I  abolish  the  chariots  from  Ephraim,  and  the  horses 
from  Jerusalem,  and  the  battle-boiv  shall  cease  ;  and  he  speaks  peace 
to  the  nations,  and  his  dominion  extends  from  sea  to  sea,  from  the 
Euphrates  to  the  ends  of  the  earth."  The  prophet  proceeds  to  give 
the  characteristic  difference  of  the  Messianic  from  all  worldly  king- 


1 02  ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  -  10. 

doms,  and  especially  from  the  former  Theocracy  ;  whether  with 
special  reference  to  the  carnal  conceptions  of  his  contemporaries  is 
uncertain.  While  earthly  kingdoms  are  upheld  and  extended  only 
by  the  power  of  arms,  while  even  the  Theocracy  formerly  employed 
them,  it  shall  in  the  time  of  the  Messiah,  be  deprived  of  every  ex- 
ternal weapon,  since  it  will  need  them  no  more,  because  its  head, 
the  Prince  of  Peace,  by  his  bare  word  extends  peace  over  the  whole 
earth,  which  willingly  and  joyfully  submits  to  him.  The  words, 
"  I  abolish,  —  battle-bow,"  have  been  by  many  interpreters  entirely 
misunderstood.  By  those,  e.  g.  who,  after  Theodoret,  (IfclwAd^^Ei/aav 
aqfJiUTU  a  EcpQoil'fi  xctl  Xnnov  «|  IsQovaalrjfx,  Tr)v  &Qaavj7]Ta  aviav  xal 
TTjv  [lanxijv  xaTaXvaag  ^aadetav),  and  Eusebius,  {TavTu  yuQ  tisqI  Trjg 
xa&aiQSUSojg  jijg  ^aaikixrjg  u^lag  tov  lovduiwv  t&vovg  id^eanlQixo,^  find 
in  these  words  a  prediction  of  the  political  extinction  of  the  cove- 
nant people  by  the  Romans.  In  like  manner,  by  those  who,  as  Gro- 
tius,  after  the  Chald.  :  "  Cotiteram  facienth  hella  et  casira  populo- 
rum,"  and  the  Seventy,  (E^oko&Qsv&i^asiai  ro^ov  ttoXs/xhiop  xai  nXij&og 
xal  slgi^vi]  £|  i&vuv,)  are  reminded  of  hostile  chariots  and  cavalry, 
and  explain  the  phrase,  "to  abolish  out  of  Ephraim,"  &.C.,  by  "  to 
make  harmless  for,"  &c.  What  follows,  where  the  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah  is  designated  as  a  kingdom  of  peace,  shows,  that,  by  the 
abolition  of  the  war-chariots,  &lc.,  the  entire  uselessness  of  every 
external  weapon  is  signified.  This  explanation  is  confirmed  also  by 
the  parallel  passages.  Entirely  analogous  is  Is.  2 :  4,  Mich.  4 :  3, 
"  Then  will  the  Lord  be  a  judge  between  the  people,  and  rebuke 
many  nations ;  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and 
their  spears  into  pruning-hooks  ;  no  people  will  lift  up  the  sword 
against  another,  they  will  learn  war  no  more."  This  passage  is 
also  so  far  explanatory  of  the  one  before  us,  as  that  there  the  reason 
of  the  destruction  of  all  warlike  apparatus  precedes,  and  therefore 
can  the  less  be  mistaken,  while  here  it  follows.  Further,  Hosea 
2  :  20,  "  I  make  for  them  a  covenant  with  the  wild  beasts,"  &c., 
"  and  will  abolish  bow  and  sword  and  war,  out  of  the  land,  >and 
cause  them  to  dwell  securely."  Likewise,  Is.  9 :  4,  (comp.  Vol.  I. 
p.  356.)  Similar  for  the  most  part,  according  to  the  words,  is  Mic. 
5 :  9,  and  was  probably  present  to  the  mind  of  Zechariah  :  'neverthe- 
less, according  to  the  sense,  it  so  far  differs,  as  that  there  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  warlike  apparatus  is  predicted  with  a  special  regard 
to  the  sinful  confidence  placed  upon  it  by  the  covenant  people.  — 
That  no  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the  second  part  can 


ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10.  103 

be  derived  from  the  connexion  of  Judah  and  Ephraim,  has  already 
been  shown  in  the  Bcitrdge,  1,  p.  377.  —  The  subject  in  "i^ni.  is 
the  king.  The  verb  is  here  emphatic.  What  worldly  kings  effect 
by  the  power  of  arms,  he  accomplishes  by  his  bare  word  ;  comp.  Ps. 
148  :  5,  .33  :  9,  and  especially,  Is.  11 :  4,  (comp.  Vol.  I.  379.)  The 
emphasis  arises  from  the  character  of  the  person  who  speaks.  The 
expression,  S  DiSty  i3n,  occurs  besides  only  in  Esth.  10  :  3,  accord- 
ing to  the  right  interpretation,  of  the  settling  of  controversies. 
Comp.,  respecting  peace  as  a  characteristic  mark  of  the  Messiah's 
time.  Volume  I.  p.  295.  The  last  part  of  the  verse,  "  and  his  do- 
minion," &c.,  has  suffered  various  false  interpretations.  Abenezra 
explains  :  "  A  nim'i,  scil.  australi,  quod  vacatur  Sodomamm,  usque 
ad  mare  scptentrionah ,  h.  e.  usque  ad  Oceanum,  et  a  fluvio,  h.  e. 
Euphrate,  ubi  est  principium  Orientis,  usque  ad  extrema  terrcs." 
Calvin  :  "  A  mart  rubra  usque  ad  mare  Syriacum."  Eichhorn : 
"  He  reigns  from  one  sea  to  the  other,  from  the  (great)  river  to  the 
end  of  the  land.  Israel's  kingdom  receives  through  Jehovah  its 
greatest  extension  ;  from  the  Dead  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea  ;  from 
the  Euphrates  to  the  deserts  of  Arabia."  In  like  manner,  Ecker- 
mann,  Bauer,  Kuinol,  and,  for  reasons  easily  to  be  conjectured,  most 
o<her  rationalist  and  rationalizing  interpreters ;  but  in  opposition  to 
this  explanation  we  offer  the  following  arguments,  which  in  part  ap- 
ply also  to  that  of  Abenezra.  1.  ]n.?:{.-'Di?5<  never  occurs  of  the  boun- 
daries of  the  Jewish  kingdom,  but  always  stands  for  the  extreme 
limits  of  the  whole  earth,  (comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  81.)  2.  As,  therefore,  in  the 
second  member  the  terminus  ad  quem  is,  in  general,  the  widest  pos- 
sible, so  in  the  second  member,  it  cannot  lie  within  the  bounds  of 
Palestine.  The  second  d;  must  rather  designate  the  most  distant 
sea.  3.  As  the  whole  sentence  is  repeated  verbatim,  Ps.  72  :  8, 
and  Zechariah  must  therefore  have  had  that  passage  in  view,  we 
are  fully  justified  in  making  use  of  it  in  the  interpretation.  There, 
however,  according  to  the  following  context,  not  merely  Palestine, 
but  the  whole  earth,  with  all  its  people  and  lands,  shall  be  subject  to 
the  king,  (Vol.  I.  102.)  4.  To  understand  by  D;  n;:  D;p  "  from  the 
Dead  or  from  the  Red  Sea  to  the  Mediterranean,"  is  inadmissible 
on  grammatical  grounds  alone.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  the  article  is 
often  omitted  in  poetry,  even  when  a  definite  noun  is  the  subject  of 
discourse  ;  comp.  Ges.  Lehrg.  p.  652  ;  Ewald,  p.  568.  But  this  hap- 
pens only  in  cases  where  the  definite  noun  may  be  sufficiently 
known  as  such  without  the  article.     An  example  is  readily  furnished 


104  ZECHARIAH  9:  1-10. 

by  inj.  This  cannot  signify  any  river  at  pleasure  ;  every  one  sees 
at  once  that  it  can  be  referred  only  to  the  Euphrates.  This  was 
called  "'njn,  the  river  x«r  e^o^ifv.  This  appellative  appellation  was 
sometimes  in  poetry  regarded  as  a  proper  name,  and  only  in  this 
way  could  the  article  be  omitted  ;  corap.  Ewald,  p.  569  ;  Jer.  2  :  18, 
Is.  7  :  20,  Mic.  7  :  12.  So  also  must  the  first  D;,  if  it  is  to  stand 
for  a  definite  sea,  designate  one,  which,  in  the  prevailing  usage, 
appears  as  the  sea  xaz  f^oxnv.  This,  however,  is  neither  the  Red 
nor  the  Dead  Sea,  which  never  occur  without  a  more  particular 
designation,  but  only  the  Mediterranean,  which  frequently  occurs 
as  vnjn  □■^n,  or  barely  D'/i,  (comp.  Ges.  and  Win.  s.  v.)  5.  There 
is  a  plain  reference  to  the  passages  where  the  boundaries  of  the 
former  Theocracy  are  given  ;  the  author  takes  two  of  the  limits 
there  given,  and  then,  instead  of  the  opposite  ones,  he  subjoins  two 
others  far  more  extensive,  and  coinciding  with  the  bounds  of  the 
earth,  (Vol.  I.  102.)  If  now  we  compare  these  passages,  (Ex. 
23  :  31  ;  Gen.  15  :  18;  Deut.  11 :  24  ;  Josh.  1  :  4  ;  2  Kings  5  :  1,) 
it  appears  that  in  them  the  Euphrates  is  uniformly  mentioned  as  the 
one  boundary,  the  Mediterranean  Sea  as  the  other.  In  one  instance 
only  the  Arabian  gulf  occurs  in  connexion  with  the  latter.  Even 
for  this  reason  the  Mediterranean  Sea  alone  can  be  understood  by 
the  first  d;.  Finally,  to  this  must  be  added,  that  also  in  the  parallel 
passages,  Mic.  7:  12,  Amos  8:  12,  the  phrase,  "  from  sea  to  sea," 
occurs  in  the  sense  "  over  the  whole  earth,"  so  far  as  it  is  surround- 
ed by  seas. 


The  history  of  the  interpretation  of  v.  9,  10,  is  of  peculiar  interest. 
This  might  naturally  be  expected  on  an  attentive  consideration  of 
the  contents  of  the  prophecy.  The  more  pointedly,  when  rightly 
understood,  it  contradicts,  as  well  the  Jewish  as  the  Rationalist 
conceptions  of  the  Messiah,  the  more  clearly  must  the  doctrinal 
prejudice  of  the  enemies  of  revelation  manifest  itself  in  the  history 
of  its  interpretation.  This  histery  must,  therefore,  possess  not 
merely  a  literary,  but  a  no  less  psychological  interest,  and  at  the 
same  time  give  an  indirect  testimony  for  the  truth,  whose  defenders 
need  not  the  art  of  its  opposers,  but  may  simply  declare  what  ap- 
pears on  the  right  application  of  the  proper  aids  to  be  the  sense  of 
each  particular  passage. 


ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  - 10.  1 05 

Among  the  Jews,  as  far  back  as  history  extends,  the  Messianic 
interpretation  was  the  prevailing  one.  This  is  proved  by  the  nu- 
merous passages  from  the  Talmud,  and  other  old  Jewish  writings 
collected  among  others  by  Bochart,  Hieroz.  p.  214,  Lightfoot, 
Schottgen,  Wetstein  on  Matth.  chap.  21.  The  groundless  suspicion 
of  Paulus  (Comment,  z.  N.  T.  3,  p.  113),  that  this  may  have  been 
introduced  after  the  time  of  Christ,  is  refuted  by  the  remark,  that 
the  later  prevalence  of  the  Messianic  interpretation  of  a  passage, 
which  so  directly  contradicted  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Messiah, 
and  furnished  the  Christian  polemic  with  so  powerful  a  weapon, 
can  be  explained  only  by  the  supposition,  that  it  was  sanctioned  by 
tradition  derived  from  the  highest  antiquity.  To  this  we  must  add, 
that  the  close  relation  of  the  entrance  of  Christ  into  Jerusalem  to 
this  passage,  imperatively  requires  us  to  suppose,  that  in  his  time  it 
was  referred  to  the  Messiah.  For  otherwise  it  is  scarcely  conceiva- 
ble what  could  have  been  the  object  in  making  the  symbolic  action 
in  its  minutest  circumstances  refer  to  the  prophecy.  Theodoret, 
indeed,  asserts,  that  the  Jews  of  his  time  explained  the  prophecy  of 
Zerubbabel,  CEyco  ds  xav  'lovdaiav  ti)v  siA^govrrjaiav  &aviJ.u^(>),  sig  tov 
ZoQo(3u^sk  javTTjv  Uuv  avaiaxvvTCig  iicXa^^dvsiv  ToXfirnvrmv.)  But,  as 
there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  such  an  interpretation  in  the  Jew- 
ish writings  themselves,  and  as  no  one  of  the  later  non-Messianic 
interpreters  ever  hit  upon  Zerubbabel,  who  seems  always  to  have 
been  considered  as  entirely  excluded  by  the  future  XT,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  Theodoret  had  no  historical  knowledge  of  such  an 
interpretation,  but  conjectured  its  existence  only  from  the  analogy 
of  other  prophecies. 

The  prophecy,  however,  when  referred  to  the  Messiah  and  cor- 
rectly explained,  must  have  caused  the  Jews  great  inconvenience. 
Independently  of  the  fulfilment,  it  was  not  easy  to  reconcile  this  pas- 
sage, merely  in  itself  considered,  with  others  in  which  the  Messiah 
is  represented  in  glory,  nor  even  the  predicate,  "  poor  and  riding  on 
an  ass,"  in  this,  prophecy  itself,  with  the  others  contained  in  it.  The 
history  of  the  Redeemer  alone  completely  removes  this  difficulty. 
"  Sa  personne  sacrie,"  remarks  Calmet,  "  nous  fournit  tout  d  lafois 
ce  qu'il  y  a  de  plus  grand,  de  plus  divin,  de  plus  magnifique,  de 
plus  fort,  allie  sans  confusion  et  sans  contradiction  avec  ce  qu'il  y  a 
de  plus  humble,  de  plus  doux,  de  plus  pauvre,  de  plus  afflige,  de  plus 
foible.  U  n'y  a  que  la  religion  Chretienne,  qui  sache  concilier  des 
extremitez,  qui  paroissent  si  contraires  et  si  opposees."     That  this 

VOL.    II,  14 


1 06  ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  - 10. 

difficulty  very  early  perplexed  the  Jews,  is  shown  by  an  attempt  at 
explanation,  which  is  found  in  the  Talmud  Sanhedrin,  chap.  11  : 
"  Rabbi  Josue  filius  Levi  objecit :  scriptum  est  de  Messia,  Dan. 
7  :  13.  Et  ecce  cum  nubibus  cceli  sicut  Jilius  Iwminis  venit.  At 
Sack.  9:9,  de  eodem  scriptum  est,  pauper  et  insidens  asino.  Resp. 
si  Israelites  digni  sunt,  veniet  cum  nubibus  cceli,  si  non  sunt  digni, 
veniet  pauper  et  asino  insidens."  In  this  explanation,  not  only  is 
the  Messianic  interpretation  retained,  but  the  words  are  taken  in 
their  natural  sense.  Still  this  interpretation  could  scarcely  be  ex- 
pected to  meet  with  general  acceptance  in  respect  to  this  difficulty 
only.  It  would  have  been  plausible  only  in  case  the  Messianic 
passages  had  been  so  distinct,  that  the  one  contained  merely  the  pre- 
diction of  an  obscure,  the  other  merely  that  of  a  glorious  Messiah. 
This  is  however  by  no  means  the  case,  as  even  the  example  of  this 
passage  sufficiently  shows.  He  who  is  designated  as  "  poor  and 
riding  on  an  ass,"  appears  at  the  same  time  as  king,  as  peculiarly 
favored  of  God,  as  ruler  of  the  whole  earth.  For  this  reason  the 
expedient  of  distinguishing  between  the  Messiah  Ben  Joseph,  and 
the  Messiah  Ben  David,  (Vol.  I.  p.  210,)  whereby  other  passages 
which  predicted  a  Messiah  in  lowliness  were  evaded,  was  here  inap- 
plicable, although,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Abenezra,  it  was 
not  the  less  resorted  to  by  some.  There  was  still  another  reason, 
which  exerted  a  more  powerful  influence  than  this  difficulty.  In 
consequence  of  the  carnal  nature  of  the  Messianic  hopes  of  the 
Jews,  which  was  constantly  becoming  more  striking  by  the  contrast 
with  Christianity,  to  most  of  them  the  thought  was  insupportable, 
that  the  Messiah  should  appear  even  conditionally  in  humiliation. 
Under  these  circumstances  there  remained  for  them  only  two  alter- 
natives. They  must  either  reject  the  reference  to  the  Messiah,  or 
seek  to  remove  the  stumblingblock  by  interpretation.  "  JFeris  enim 
similes  sunt,"  remarks  Hulsius,  Theol.  Jud.  p.  162,  '' isti  Jwmines, 
qui  venatorum  retia  devitant,  quantum  possunt,  ubi  vero  se  irrctitas 
senserint,  conantur  eluctari."  It  was  natural,  that  comparatively 
few  should  take  the  former  course ;  the  Messianic  interpretation  had 
the  authority  of  tradition  in  its  favor,  and  was  at  the  same  time 
sanctioned  by  the  Talmud.  While  Ti^'^^^  and  j-'ivi  J ,  in  v.  9,  and  the 
whole  contents  of  the  tenth  verse  presented  such  pleasing  prospects, 
that  many  could  with  difficulty  prevail  upon  themselves  to  regard 
the  prophecy  as  having  been  already  fulfilled.  There  was,  more- 
over, the  difficulty  of  making  the  non-Messianic  interpretation  har- 


ZECHARI AH  9:1-10.  107 

monize  with  the  time  in  which  Zechariah  lived.  In  the  case  of 
the  prophets  who  lived  before  the  exile,  there  were  subjects,  as 
Hezekiah  for  example,  to  which  the  Messianic  prophecies  which 
occasioned  perplexity,  might,  though  not  without  violence,  be  re- 
ferred. Zechariah,  however,  prophesied  during  the  second  temple, 
when  the  kingdom  had  long  been  extinct ;  among  the  leaders  of  the 
Jews  in  this  later  period,  there  was  no  one  to  whom  the  contents  of 
the  tenth  verse  could  be  plausibly  referred,  even  by  the  aid  of  a 
forced  interpretation,  and  the  assumption  of  a  grotesque  hyperbole. 
Nevertheless  there  were  at  least  two  interpreters  who  ventured  to  bid 
defiance  to  these  hindrances,  because  they  appeared  to  them  still 
less  than  the  intolerable,  "  poor  and  riding  on  an  ass,"  which  not 
only  threatened  to  destroy  their  whole  theology,  but  was  also  revolt- 
ing to  their  hearts,  while  the  non-Messianic  interpretation  only  vio- 
lated their  understanding,  and  their  sense  of  exegeticat  propriety. 
Rabbi  Moses  Hakkohen,  according  toAbenezra,  referred  the  proph- 
ecy to  Nehemiah.  He  is  called,  Neh.  6 :  6,  7,  "  King  of  Judah"; 
he  was  poor  and  rode  upon  an  ass,  because  he  possessed  no  horse. 
Abenezra  refuted  him  by  the  remark,  that,  in  the  cited  passage,  the 
title  of  king  was  attributed  to  him  only  in  the  way  of  reproach  by 
his  enemies ;  he  never  wished  himself  to  be  any  other  than  a  Per- 
sian stadtholder.  To  his  great  riches,  history  bears  testimony. 
Abenezra  himself,  however,  just  as  widely  errs.  "  Mca  sententia" 
he  says,  "  Judajilius  Chasmoncei  regis  nomine  intelligitur,  quifortis 
fuit.  Atqite  initio  neqne  dives  erat,  neque  equo  instructus."  Bo- 
chart  1.  c.  has  given  himself  much  trouble  ingeniously  and  learnedly 
to  refute  this  explanation.  The  best  refutation,  however,  is  found 
in  Abarbanel  :  "  Demiror,  7nalam  intentionem  oculos  intelkctus  ejus 
ita  excoecasse." 

Far  more  numerous,  on  the  contrary,  were  tbose,  who,  retaining 
the  Messianic  interpretation,  sought  to  remove  the  grounds  of  offence 
by  exegesis,  and  cover  as  well  as  they  could  the  supposed  nakedness 
of  the  Messiah.  (Athanasius  makes  the  heathen  say  in  mockery  : 
'O  diog  xav  XQiaxiavwv,  y.aXovfifvo^-  Xqiotus,  ng  ovdgiov  ixd&ias.  Ac- 
cording to  TertuUian,  the  Christians  were  called  by  the  Romans, 
asinarii;  comp.  also  the  ridicule  of  King  Sapor  mentioned  on  p.  98.) 
The  latter  was  sought  to  be  accomplished  in  a  ridiculous  manner  by 
those,  who  asserted,  that  the  ass  upon  which  the  Messiah  will  ride, 
is  a  son  of  the  she  ass,  which  had  been  made  within  the  six  days  of 
creation,  and  the  same  on  which  Abraham  rode,  when  he  went  to 


1 08  ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  -  10. 

offer  up  Isaac,  and  Moses  when  he  went  down  into  Egypt ;  comp. 
the  Jalkut  Ruheni  in  Schottgen  1.  c.  and  other  passages  from  the 
Jalkut  Schimeoni,  the  Pirke  R.  Elieser  and  Jarchi  in  Eisenmenger 
II.  p.  697,  whose  ridicule  of  the  obstinacy  of  this  ass,  will  not  in- 
deed be  found  entirely  just  by  him,  who  remembers  the  Jewish 
doctrine  of  the  migration  of  souls,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
this  fable.  The  R.  Samuel  in  the  Tract  Sanhcdrin  1.  c.  refutes 
the  ridicule  of  King  Sapor  by  the  remark,  that  the  ass  of  the  Mes- 
siah will  have  a  hundred  colors  !  Those  proceed  more  ingeniously, 
who,  as  the  Seventy  and  the  Chald.  Paraphrast,  take  'J;^  as  a  desig- 
nation of  humility,  and  the  riding  on  the  ass  as  its  sign.  So  R. 
Saadias  Haggaon  on  Dan.  7  :  13  :  D^DiD  Sj'  X3^  sS  O  XU^^  X2^  xSn 
mNJ3,  "  He  will  come  in  humility,  not  on  horses  in  pride."  So 
Kimchi,  Jarchi,  (who  betrays  his  evil  conscience  by  skipping  over 
■•j;?  as  quick  as  possible,  with  the  hasty  remark,  this  nu;?  mo  is  a 
sign  of  humility,)  Abarbanel,  and  others. 

It  is  self-evident,  that  the  reference  of  the  prophecy  to  the  histori- 
cal Christ  exclusively  prevailed  in  the  Christian  church,  until  the  rise 
of  Deism  and  Rationalism.  The  only  exception  was  made  by  Gro- 
tius,  whose  assertion,  that  the  prophecy  referred  only  in  a  higher 
sense  to  Christ,  but  properly  and  directly  to  Zerubbabel,  excited 
general  opposition,  and  called  forth  a  multitude  of  refutations.  The 
first  of  these  was  that  of  Bochart,  who  left  indeed  no  great  gleanings 
for  his  successors.  Here  also  the  mala  intentio  was  very  manifest, 
(see  on  the  causes  of  his  errors  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Messianic 
prophecies,  Vol.  I.  p.  261  ;)  his  very  hesitation  (he  supposes  on  Matth. 
21,  the  passage  could  be  referred  also  to  Judas  Mace,  or  some 
other  person,)  shows,  that  he  aimed  to  set  aside  at  any  price  the 
reference  to  the  Messiah,  against  which  he  does  not  bring  a  single 
argument.  But  stUl  more  clearly  does  this  appear  from  the  violent 
operations,  which  he,  an  interpreter  of  fine  exegetical  tact,  employs? 
for  this  purpose.  He  explains  K3;  by  "  he  has  come,"  and  refers  it 
to  the  return  of  Zerubbabel  from  Babylon,  which  happened  long 
before  the  time  of  the  prophecy.  He  affirms,  in  opposition  to  the 
testimony  of  history,  that  Zerubbabel,  if  not  in  name,  yet  in  reality, 
was  a  king,  and  slily  appeals  to  Jer.  23  :  5;  Ez.  37  :  22,  24,  as  pas- 
sages where  he  is  called  king,  in  like  manner  as  here  without  even 
intimating  that  such  is  the  case  only  according  to  his  own  Traosofitj- 
vtia,  arising  from  the  same  mala  intentio ;  pn^,  he  dilutes  by  the 
explanation,  i.  e.  cequus,  q>d6nat§ig,  non  tyrannus.     The  perversion 


ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  - 10.  1 09 

of"  poor  "  and  "  riding  on  an  ass,"  as  being  self-evident,  and  more- 
over furnished  him  by  the  Jewish  interpreters,  scarcely  requires 
mentioning.  Against  the  latter  Bochart  remarks :  "  Frigidum  id 
est  mprimis,  quod  his  prophctcs  verbis :  Et  ascendens  etc.  signijicari 
vult  Zorobabelis  modcstiam  et  pacis  studium.  Sic  enim  etiam  Solo- 
mon cum  toto  equitatu  suo  did  potuerit  asino  esse  vectus,  quia  rex 
nullus  pads  fiiit  studiosior."  But  still  greater  sacrifices  of  exegeti- 
cal  feeling  were  required  by  v.  10 ;  for  scarcely  can  a  stronger  con- 
trast be  conceived  than  that  between  the  poor  Zerubbabel,  and  the 
king  of  this  verse.  The  removal  of  the  war-chariots,  &>c.,  from 
Ephraim,  signifies,  according  to  him,  that  all  hostile  power  shall  be 
made  harmless,  (comp.  p.  100.)  That  ",he  will  speak  peace  to  the 
heathen,"  he  explains  :  "  nempe  civitas  Jerusalem  fcedera  faciet  cum 
regibus,  cum  Lacedcumoniis,  cum  Romanis."  The  history  of  Zerub- 
babel left  him  here  entirely  in  the  lurch,  but,  rather  than  give  up  his 
hypothesis  on  that  account,  he  resorts  to  a  violation  of  grammar,  and 
supplies  as  subject  for  '^3.T  the  femin.  "  Jerusalem."  To  this  also 
he  refers  the  suff.  mascul.  in  iStyo.  How  little  he  accomplished  by 
this  great  effort  appears  from  a  comparison  of,  "  from  sea  to  sea, 
from  the  Euphrates  to  the  bounds  of  the  earth,"  with  his  explana- 
tion :  "  imperium  Hierosoly^norum,  sub  quod  venit  Samaria,  Galilaia, 
Galaaditis  et  alia,  qua;  a  tcmporibus  Jeroboami  distracta  fuerant  !  " 
The  history  of  the  interpretation  of  this  prophecy  by  the  Ration- 
alists presents  much  which  corresponds  with  that  by  the  Jews. 
They  also  could  by  no  means  perceive  in  it  the  Messiah  in  poverty 
and  lowliness.  They  would  thus  have  annihilated  their  whole  sys- 
tem, which  rests  on  the  exclusion  of  every  supernatural  operation  of 
God.  Consequently  they  regarded  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  as  a 
mere  human  invention.  But,  before  they  could  carry  through  this 
assertion  with  any  plausibility,  they  must  set  aside  every  thing  that 
pointed  to  the  lowliness,  suffering,  and  death  of  the  Messiah.  For 
it  was  the  expectation  of  a  Messiah  in  glory  only,  that  could  be 
plausibly  derived  from  the  constitution  of  human  nature,  and  the 
relations  of  the  Israelitish  people ;  they  did  not  themselves  pretend 
to  explain  the  origin  of  the  idea  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  (comp.  I. 
268.)  They  were  the  more  careful  not  to  concede,  that  it  was 
found  in  the  Old  Testament,  since  the  agreement  of  such  passages 
with  the  personal  history  of  Christ  was  far  more  striking  than  that 
of  the  Messiah  in  glory.  That  which  corresponds  to  the  latter  has, 
in  part,  yet  to  be  fulfilled,  and,  even  so  far  as  it  has  been  already 


110  ZECHARIAH  9:1-10. 

accomplished,  remains  in  a  great  measure  concealed  from  the  eye 
of  sense,  and  is  obvious  only  to  the  eye  of  faith.  With  their  views, 
therefore,  they  were  compelled  to  pursue  one  of  two  ways,  which  the 
Jews  had  already  taken  before  them. 

Those  who  sought  for  another  subject  than  the  Messiah,  were 
here  somewhat  more  numerous  than  among  the  Jews.  Bauer  led 
the  way  in  his  work  on  the  Minor  Prophets.  He  referred  the  proph- 
ecy to  Simon  Maccabseus,  who,  alas,  was  only  not  a  king,  and,  from 
beginning  to  end,  was  a  warrior.  At  a  later  period  (in  the  Scholia 
in  V.  T.)  he  saw  himself  the  absurdity  of  his  interpretation,  and 
betook  himself  to  the  ideal  Messiah.  Paulus,  (on  Matth.  21,)  who, 
for  a  mere  doctrinal  reason,  maintains  that  the  portion  was  compos- 
ed in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  endeavoured  by  violent  means  to 
compel  the  prophecy  to  refer  to  the  warlike  John  Hyrcanus  ;  a  ref- 
erence which  Jahn  gave  himself  the  trouble  earnestly  and  funda- 
mentally to  refute,  {Vaticin.  Mess.  I.  p.  171  sqq.).  These  two  ititer- 
preters  belong  to  a  period,  in  which  Rationalism,  not  having  yet 
thoroughly  learnt  to  orientalize,  was  cautious  on  the  subject  of  the 
ideal  Messiah.  The  second  expedient,  at  a  later  period,  was  gen- 
erally preferred ;  only  two  recent  interpreters  adhered  to  the  old 
method  of  interpretation.  According  to  Forberg  {Comment,  in 
Sack.  Part.  Post.  Part.  1,  p.  24,)  the  subject  of  the  prophecy  was 
King  Uzziah,  who  vanquished  the  Philistines.  Here  also  the  mala 
intentio  becomes  very  evident  from  his  entirely  omitting  ''IV  in  the 
translation,  and  thus  proving  that  he  was  not  himself  convinced  of 
the  correctness  of  his  explanation.  Theiner  makes  even  Jehovah 
the  subject ;  he  thought  that  Jehovah,  who  has  gradually  conquered 
all  enemies,  and  who  will  conquer  any,  who  may  hereafter  arise,  is 
figuratively  expressed  by  the  prophet  by  the  fiction  of  his  solemn  entry 
into  Jerusalem.  The  erroneous  interpretation  of  "  poor,"  and  "  rid- 
ing on  an  ass,"  has  here  reached  its  climax,  and  it  will  not  repay 
the  trouble  to  show  how  J'^U  also  is  explained  in  a  manner  entirely 
capricious,  «Sic. 

The  number  of  those,  who  refer  the  prophecy  to  the  ideal  Mes- 
siah is  very  great.  So  Eckermann,  (Beitr.  I.  1,  p.  99  sqq.)  Kuinol, 
Ammon,  Eichhorn,  Gescnius,  Winer,  and  many  others.  Common  to 
them  all  is  the  misunderstanding  of  "';ir,  and  the  "  riding  on  an  ass." 
In  respect  to  most  of  them,  to  this  must  be  added  the  limitation  of 
"  from  sea  to  sea,"  &c.,  to  the  narrow  bounds  of  Palestine,  and  the 
erroneous  interpretation  of  J'k/ij  by  conqueror,   proceeding  on  the 


ZECHARIAH  9  :  1  -  10.  1 1 1 

supposition,  that,  if  not  taken  in  this  sense,  it  must  necessarily  mean 
delivered,  and  imply  previous  suffering,  which  does  not  suit  the 
preconceived  idea  of  the  Messiah. 

It  is  now  incumbent  upon  us  to  prove  the  reference  of  the  proph- 
ecy to  the  historical  Christ,  to  be  necessary,  and  the  only  one  tliat 
is  correct.  All  the  arguments-  are  here  combined,  by  which,  in 
general,  the  Messianic  character  of  a  passage  can  be  proved,  (comp. 
Vol.  I.  245.) 

1.  The  evidence  of  the  New  Testament  is  here  of  especial  im- 
portance, and  indeed,  eminently,  that  of  the  Lord  himself  The 
older  theologians,  for  the  most  part,  regarded  the  entrance  of  Christ 
into  Jerusalem  on  an  ass,  as  an  irrefragable  internal  argument  for 
the  reference  of  the  prophecy  to  him.  As  such,  Chrysostom  of  old 
triumphantly  exhibited  it  to  the  Jews  :  ^Eqwtthjov  toIwv  t6v  'lovScilov, 
Tioiiog  ^uodEvg  oxovfisvog  inl  ovov  rjk&ev  slg  'legovaaXijfi,  ul)^  ovy.  av 
E^oiBv  bItieIp,  all'  1]  TovTov  fxovov.  It  must,  however,  be  confessed, 
that,  understood  in  this  way,  it  could  make  an  impression  only  on  op- 
posers,  who  were  favorably  disposed.  The  English  deists,  {Bibliotli. 
Britann.  1,  p.  403  sqq.)  and  among  the  recent  critics.  Amnion,  ob- 
jected, that  this  action  could  prove  nothing,  since  it  was  voluntary, 
and  one  which  might  be  performed  also  by  a  false  Messiah.  In 
addition  to  this,  there  is  another  argument.  The  importance  attach- 
ed to  the  entrance  of  Christ  on  an  ass,  as  an  internal  argument  for 
the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  in  him  rested  on  the  supposition,  that 
Zechariah  properly  and  literally  described  such  an  event.  This 
supposition,  however,  is  erroneous,  though  it  was  perceived  by 
scarcely  any  of  the  older  interpreters,  except  Calvin  and  Vitringa, 
{Comm.  in  Jes.  II.  p.  6fi7.)  The  "  riding  on  an  ass"  is,  in  the  first 
instance,  only  an  individualizing  of  'Jj^,  only  an  exhibition  of  the 
lowliness  of  the  exalted  king  by  a  striking  image.  Vitringa,  there- 
fore, justly  remarks,  that  the  prophecy  would  be  fulfilled  in  Christ, 
even  though  he  had  not  in  this  manner  made  his  entrance  into  Jeru- 
salem. Accordingly  the  absence  of  this  sign  could  not  be  made  an 
objection  to  another  subject,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  he  possessed, 
in  connexion  with  the  other  marks,  only  the  substance  of  the  figure, 
the  entire  lowliness  which  it  implies.  —  In  another  point  of  view, 
however,  the  entrance  of  Christ  is  of  great  importance,  as  a  proof  of 
the  Messianic  character'  of  the  passage.  It  supplies  the  place  of 
an  interpretation  expressed  in  the  most  emphatic  words.  The  en- 
trance of  Christ  was  a  symbolic  action,  whose  object  and  import 


112  ZECHARIAH   9:1-10. 

were  to  establish  his  regal  dignity,  and  at  the  same  time  to  exhibit 
by  a  lively  image  the  true  nature  of  his  person  and  his  kingdom,  in 
contrast  with  the  false  conceptions  of  his  friends  and  his  enemies. 
The  entrance,  therefore,  had  its  import  independent  of  the  prophe- 
cy ;  nor  indeed  did  any  action  of  Christ,  or  any  event  of  his  life, 
occur  without  such  an  import,  and  solely  for  the  fulfilment  of  proph- 
ecy, which,  to  be  sure,  in  very  many  instances,  was  a  concurrent  ob- 
ject, (comp.  Vol.  I.  328.)  Without  this  independent  import  of  the 
transaction,  it  is  scarcely  to  be  explained,  why  Mark  and  Luke  did 
not  expressly  intimate  its  reference  to  the  prophecy.  But  that  Christ 
selected  precisely  this  from  among  many  possible  modes  of  symbolic 
representation,  that,  in  ordering  the  particular  circumstances  of  his 
entrance,  he  had  the  prophecy  in  view,  (comp.  p.  98,)  can  be  ex- 
plained only  by  the  supposition,  that  as,  especially  in  respect  to  the 
last  actions  and  events  of  his  life,  he  so  repeatedly  and  emphatically 
exhibits  the  reference  to  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  so 
did  he  intend  by  this  explanation  to  represent  himself  as  the  king 
promised  by  Zechariah.  The  objection,  that  this  explanation  of 
his,  has  of  itself  no  weight,  as  a  testimony,  is  met  by  the  wonderful 
deeds  which  preceded  the  transactions,  and  the  wonderful  circum- 
stances which  were  connected  with  it.  —  After  the  testimony  of  the 
Lord  himself,  for  the  reference  of  the  prophecy  to  him,  has  been 
shown,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  dwell  on  that  of  the  apostles.  For 
the  believer,  the  former  is  sufficient ;  he  who  does  not  believe  the 
Lord,  will  pay  still  less  regard  to  his  servants.  In  respect  to  Mat- 
thew, Fritzsche  has  already  shown,  that  the  close  relation  in  which 
he  places  the  entrance  of  Christ  to  the  prophecy  as  well  appears 
from  TOTS,  in  V.  1,  (quum  appropinqiiasset  Hierosolymis^  tunc  memor 
oraculi  misit,)  as  it  also  follows  from  v.  4.  The  form  of  citation  in 
this  verse,  Tovto  ds  oXov  yiyovsv  Xva  nlTjgca&jj,  is  the  most  emphatic 
of  all,  (comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  328.)  The  reference  to  the  prophecy  is 
so  important  in  the  view  of  John,  that  he  adduces  it  as  something 
entirely  peculiar,  that  the  disciples  attained  to  the  knowledge  of  it 
after  the  glorification  of  Christ. 

2.  As  an  external  accessory  proof,  the  testimony  of  Jewish  tradi- 
tion also  is  valid,  (comp.  p.  105.)  The  author  takes  this  opportu- 
nity to  remark,  that  he  has  never  attributed  to  this  proof  any  other 
than  a  subordinate  importance,  and  has  always  been  far  from  sup- 
posing, that  it  is  alone  sufficient  to  establish  the  Messianic  character 
of  a  passage.     No  one  can  be  willing  to  assert  this,  who,  from  an 


ZECHARLVH  9  :  1  - 10.  1 13 

intimate  acquaintance  with  the  older  Jewish  interpretations,  knows 
what  a  mass  of  passages  are,  without  any  reason,  referred  to  the 
Messiah,  even  in  them.  An  auxiliary  argument,  though  not  of  itself 
decisive,  may  be  derived  from  tradition,  when,  as  in  the  present 
instance,  the  tradition  can  be  shown  to  be  both  very  ancient  and 
unanimous,  and  when  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  to  favor  the 
carnal  Messianic  hopes  of  the  Jews,  and  thus  furnish  an  inducement 
for  the  Messianic  interpretation. 

3,  This  interpretation  can  be  justified  also  from  parallel  passages, 
V.  10.  The  words,  "  from  sea  to  sea,"  «fcc.,  are  taken  from  Ps.  72, 
already  shown  to  be  Messianic  ;  the  remaining  part  of  the  verse 
refers  back  to  the  passage,  Mic.  5  :  9,  which  is  likewise  Messianic, 
(comp.  Beitr.  1,  p.  368.) 

4.  But  the  contents  of  the  prophecy  itself  furnish  the  chief  argu- 
ment after  the  authority  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  one  which  is 
in  itself  entirely  decisive.  The  remarks  contained  in  it  of  the  king 
are  of  a  kind,  which  suit  no  other  subject  than  the  historical  Christ. 
Every  subject  found  in  the  later  Jewish  history  is  excluded  by  his 
very  designation  as  the  king  of  the  covenant  people,  xa/  iioxi]v, 
still  more,  however,  by  the  enigmatical  union  of  apparently  the  most 
opposite  marks,  the  deepest  abasement  and  helplessness,  and  at  the 
same  time  a  dominion,  which,  not  by  the  power  of  arms,  but  the 
bare  word  of  the  king,  extends  itself  over  the  whole  earth,  and  brings 
all  the  heathen  nations  into  a  state  of  peace  and  obedience.  The- 
odoret  :  xal  to  ndvrav  naQaSo^oiaiov,  oti  xov  xUvai  ti]v  xscpaXrjv  ovx 
txav,  6  Tw  ttco'Am  XQrjauiusvog  ntxarjQ  yrjg  x«t  ^aXuaarjg  sdeXi'jaag  ey-gajijaE. 
That  the  reference  to  the  ideal  Messiah  is  untenable,  its  defenders 
themselves  involuntarily  testify,  by  their  forced  interpretations. 

Arguments  against  the  Messianic  interpretation  1o  be  refuted  we 
do  not  find,  unless  one  were  to  regard  as  such  the  trivial  objection  of 
R.  Lipmann,  that  the  dominion  of  Christ  does  not  extend  over  the 
whole  earth,  and  many  wars  have  been  waged  since  his  appearance. 
The  answer  has  already  been  given,  (Vol.  I.  297.)  It  is  still  to 
be  remarked,  that  several  fathers,  as  Theodoret  and  Eusebius,  were 
led  to  refer  this  passage  also,  like  Is.  2,  to  the  peace,  which  pre- 
vailed under  the  reign  of  Augustus.  By  such  weak  interpretations, 
arising  from  an  extravagant  dread  of  every  thing  which  could  afford 
the  least  support  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Chiliasts,  they  must  have 
strengthened  opposers  in  their  error. 

VOL.    11.  15 


114  ZECHARIAH  9:11.  — 10.  12. 


Chap.  9:  11.  — 10:  12. 

That  a  new  portion  here  commences,  or  rather  that  a  new  scene 
presents  itself  to  the  spiritual  eye  of  the  prophet,  is  so  clear  from 
the  contents,  that  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  how  it  could  be  over- 
looked by  ancient  and  modern  interpreters.  The  prophet,  v.  9,  10, 
had  described  a  kingdom  of  peace,  which,  deprived  of  all  earthly 
weapons  and  bulwarks,  should  be  extended  over  the  whole  earth, 
and  embrace  all  the  heathen  nations.  Here  on  a  sudden  all  is  war- 
like. The  covenant  people  appear  in  conflict  with  their  mighty 
oppressors,  and  as  such  the  Greeks  are  particularly  mentioned.  The 
victory  obtained  by  the  aid  of  the  Lord  is  followed,  in  connexion 
with  other  Theocratic  blessings,  by  that  freedom,  of  which  the  cov- 
enant people  under  Zechariah  were  still  painfully  destitute.  And, 
in  order  to  make  the  prosperity  complete,  Ephraim  also,  who,  at  the 
time  of  the  prophet,  appeared,  according  to  human  view,  to  be  a 
branch  for  ever  separated  from  the  vine,  is  at  last  led  back  by  the 
Lord  from  his  dispersion,  and  again  incorporated  with  the  Theocracy. 

It  is  evident  from  this  representation,  that  the  prophecy,  with 
the  exception  of  the  last  prediction,  which  reaches  to  the  time  of  the 
Messiah,  refers  not  merely  in  the  first  instance,  but  exclusively  to 
the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  What  the  Lord  would  then  do  to  com- 
plete the  work  begun  among  the  covenant  people  by  the  restoration 
from  the  Babylonish  exile,  the  prophet  represents  to  his  contempora- 
ries, who  are  mourning  over  the  feeble  beginnings  of  the  new  colony. 

This  sudden  transition  from  the  time  of  the  Messiah  to  that  which 
preceded  it,  need  not  appear  strange.  The  prophet  had  spoken, 
V.  1-8,  of  the  expedition  of  Alexander,  and  of  the  protection  of  the 
covenant  people  during  its  progress.  The  transition  from  this  point 
to  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,  would  have  been  altogether  more  in 
accordance  with  the  actual  succession  of  events.  But  in  the  period 
between  the  two  events  his  spiritual  eye  had  fallen  upon  the  far 
greater  blessings,  which  should  be  conferred  upon  the  covenant 
people  by  the  Messiah.  This  we  cannot  explain,  with  Jahn,  by  sup- 
posing a  contrast  of  the  great  Prince  of  Peace  with  the  great  worldly 
conqueror  described,  v.  1-8.  Had  this  been  the  design  of  the 
prophet,  the  person  of  the  latter  in  v.  1-8,  would  not  have  been 
kept  so  much  in  the  back  ground.  It  was  rather  owing  to  the  fact, 
that  the  Messianic  hopes  so  entirely  fill  the  soul  of  the  prophets,  that 


I 


ZECHARIAH  9  :  11.  - 10  :  12.  115 

they  pass  over  from  every  inferior  blessing  to  this  last  and  highest, 
to  which  all  others  refer,  unconcerned  whether  in  the  mean  time 
other  blessings  of  God  still  await  the  covenant  people,  in  the  repre- 
sentation of  which,  in  a  manner  equally  easy  and  unobserved,  they 
again  return  to  the  Messianic  time,  the  images  of  which  everywhere 
force  themselves  upon  them  with  an  irresistible  charm,  and  some- 
times even  mingle  with  those  of  the  nearer  benefits,  (comp.  Vol.  I. 
p.  226.) 

V.  11.  "Even  thou,  —  on  account  of  thy  covenant  sealed  with 
blood,  I  release  thy  prisoners  out  of  the  pit  wherein  is  no  loater." 
J??<"D4,  according  to  most  interpreters,  (Mark,  Michaelis,  Pfeifer, 
Rosenmiiller  and  others,)  stands  in  contrast  with  the  blessings  an- 
nounced in  the  preceding  context  to  the  heathen  nations  :  "  Believe 
not,  O  Zion,  that  the  Lord  will  therefore  neglect  thee;  he  will  rather 
cherish  for  thee  an  entirely  peculiar  care."  But  this  supposition  is 
untenable,  because  the  promises  in  the  two  foregoing  verses  directly 
refer  only  to  the  covenant  people,  and  only  so  far  to  the  heathen,  as 
the  predicted  extension  of  the  Theocracy  over  them  was  also  a 
benefit  to  the  covenant  people.  It  is  Zion's  king  whose  dominion 
extends  itself  over  the  whole  earth,  and  in  his  glory  his  people  also 
participate.  Equally  inadmissible  is  the  explanation  of  Cocceius 
and  others,  "  Non  solum  venit  rex  tuus,  sed  et  diniisi  vincfos  tuos." 
For  it  renders  the  pron.  separatum  r\X,  which  must  necessarily  have 
a  peculiar  emphasis,  entirely  useless,  and  the  DJ  connected  with  it 
by  Makkeph,  is  referred  directly  to  'J?!;!^"^.  The  correct  interpre- 
tation is,  that  j7<X"DJ  "  also  thou,"  stands  for  "  even  thou,"  exactly 
as  v.  12,  Drri~DJ,  "  even  to  day,"  i.  q.  although  thou  art  in  a  state 
of  total  helplessness,  although  thou  appearest  to  be  lost  beyond  de- 
liverance. This,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  is  peculiar  to  Calvin  : 
"  Particula  DJ  emphatica  est,  quasi  diceret :  Video  me  non  multum 
proficere  apud  vos,  quia  estis  quodammodo  attoniti  malts ;  deinde 
nulla  spes  vos  recreat,  quoniam  putatis,  vos  esse  quasi  centum  mor- 
tibus  obrutos.     Ergo  utcunque  hcec  congeries  malorum  vos  exanimet, 

—  tamen  redimam  vinctos  vestros Nam  tunc  poterat  occur- 

rere  hecc  dubitutio  :  Quid  iste  nos  ad  ingentem  Icetitiam  horlatur,  cum 
tamen  partim  adhuc  captiva  sit  ecclesia  dei,  pariim  autem  misere  et 
crudeliter  ab  hostibus  suis  vexentur,  qui  reversi  sunt  in  patriam. 
Huic  objcctioni  in  dei  ptersona  rcspondef  propheta,  quod  scilicet  deus 
ad  suos  liberandos  sufficiet,  etiamsi  demersi  sint  in  profundissimo 
gU7'gitey     '^n"''}3~DT3,  "  in  the  blood  of  thy  covenant,"  is  by  several 


116  2ECHARIAH  9:  11— 10:12. 

interpreters  referred  to  'Onb'>^.  It  would  not  then  be  necessary  to 
attribute  an  unauthorized  meaning  to  3.  Tl>e  action  of  deliverance 
would  be  represented  as  resting  in  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  or 
depending  upon  it.  But  this  connexion  is  contrary  to  the  accents 
which  bind  the  words  closely  with  J^N"OJ,  and  separate  them  from 
'J^nW  :  "  also  thou,  in  the  blood  of  thy  covenant  I  dismiss,"  &/C., 
i.  q.  "  how-ever  miserable  thou  mayst  be,  nevertheless,  because  thou 
art  in  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  thou  art  thereby  freed  from  sin, 
and  consecrated  to  me,"  &c.  After  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant 
on  Sinai,  Moses  had  sprinkled  the  people  with  the  blood  of  the 
victims,  saying  :  "  Behold  that  is  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  which 
the  Lord  makes  with  you  concerning  all  these  words."  Exod.  24  :  8. 
—  By  this  symbolical  act,  — the  blood  a  sign  and  means  of  deliver- 
ance from  sin,  Levit.  17:  11;  Heb.  9:  18  sq., —  were  the  people 
solemnly  declared  as  purified,  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  and,  there- 
fore, at  the  same  time  also  under  his  peculiar  protection,  a  declara- 
tion, which  was  constantly  repeated  by  the  sacrificial  institutions 
ordained  by  God.  The  blood  of  the  covenant  was  accordingly  a 
sure  pledge  to  the  covenant  people  of  deliverance  from  every  dis- 
tress, so  long  as  they  did  not  make  its  promises  of  none  effect  by  a 
wicked  violation  of  the  conditions,  which  God  had  imposed,  Cal- 
vin :  "  Si  sacrificia  vestra  neque  frustra  insiituit  deus,  neque  etiam 
fru'stra  vos  servutis,  ccrte  effectiis  tandem  in  lucem  prodibit.  —  Vos 
quotidie  offertis  victimas  et  sanguis  funditur  in  altari ;  hoc  deus 
fioluit  frusti-a  fieri.  Jam  cum  idea  vos  7-ecipiat  deus  in  gratiam,  ut 
salvi  sitis :  liberabit  ergo  vinctos  ecclcsioE  sum."  ^T^vh.^.  is  taken  by 
several  interpreters,  as  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  Drusius,  Grotius,  Blayney, 
Rosenmiiller,  and  others,  as  a  proper  prefer ;  "As  I  formerly 
brought  back  thy  captives  from  Egypt,  so  (v.  12)  also  shall  ye  now 
return  to  your  native  land."  Tarnov :  "  Non  est,  quod  de  cample- 
mento  prcecedcntium  (others  :  sequentium)  promissionum  quicquam 
dubites :  respicc  saltern  recens  tibi  prcBstitum  beneficium,  quo  ex  Bab- 
ylone  es  educta,  id  quod  tibi,  quando  promittebatur  per  prophetas 
ejus,  ix  Tojv  advi'uuoj'  esse  videbatur."  But  there  is  no  doubt,  that 
THl^  is  the  prcBtcritum  propheticum,  and  that  the  prophet  speaks 
of  a  future  deliverance  of  the  covenant  people.  On  the  opposite 
supposition  the  discourse  is  too  abrupt,  and  requires  something  to  be 
supplied.  The  expression,  "  return  to  the  stronghold,"  v.  12,  which, 
as  will  hereafter  appear,  relates  "to  the  pit  in  which  there  is  no 
water,"  shows,  that  we  are  not  here  to  look  for  a  designation  of  an 


ZECHARIAH  9:11.-10:12.  117 

affliction  which  has  long  since  passed  ;  and  besides  the  reference 
to  the  oppression  in  Egypt,  and  in  general  to  any  calamity  which 
had  already  taken  place,  is  irreconcpable  with  the  correct  interpre- 
tation of  the  first  words  of  the  verse.  In  what  follows  also,  and 
which  is  generally  acknowledged  to  relate  to  the  future,  the  prcster 
is  constantly  interchanged  with  tlie  future,  corap.  e.  g.  v.  13.  — 
Empty  cisterns  were  used  in  the  East  instead  of  prisons;  hence  the 
latter,  even  when  they  were  not  cisterns,  received  the  name  "ii!3. 
In  consequence  of  the  mud  remaining  in  them,  they  were  exceed- 
ingly unwholesome  and  noxious.  13  D'.D  px  is  taken  by  several,  as 
Calvin,  as  a  designation  of  a  second  distress,  not  necessarily  connect- 
ed with  confinement  in  the  cistern  :  "  Deinde  siti  etiam  arescerc,  ita 
ut  spontc  illis  immincal  mors,  nisi  liberentur  viirahiliter  a  deo,"  But 
this  addition,  which,  so  far  as  the  language  is  concerned,  alludes 
to  Gen.  38  :  24,  Ci;d  13  px  pn  "n^ni,  serves  rather  for  a  more  ac- 
curate description  of  the  iiJ  itself.  It  was  only  into  cisterns  with- 
out water,  that  prisoners  were  thrown.  Mark,  therefore,  is  likewise 
in  error  when  he  perceives  herein  an  allusion  to  a  quality  of  the 
pit  itself,  which  would  make  it  insupportable  :  "  Cum  fovea;  negan- 
tur  agues,  possit  in  ea  indirecte  videri  positum  lutum  profundum, 
fcedum  et  foetidumJ'  Ps.  40  :  3  ;  Jer.  38  :  6.  —  Many  interpreters 
suppose  the  abiding  in  the  pit,  to  be  a  figurative  designation  of  im- 
prisonment; so  Grotius,  Rosenmijller,  Eichhorn,  Forberg.  But  this 
supposition  has  no  justification  in  the  figure  itself.  It  rather  occurs 
elsewhere  also  in  a  wider  sense,  as  a  designation  of  the  deepest  dis- 
tress and  misery.  Thus  e.  g.  Ps.  40  :  3,  88  :  7  ;  Lam.  3  :  53,  where 
the  reference  to  a  special  event  in  the  life  of  Jeremiah  is  evidently 
erroneous.  Also  Is.  42  :  22,  the  image  of  a  prison  stands  for  a  de- 
signation of  the  deepest  misery.  That  this  wider  meaning,  however, 
prevails  in  this  passage  appears  from  the  following  grounds.  1.  As 
the  stronghold  in  v.  12,  is  an  image  of  prosperity  and  security,  so 
must  its  contrast  also,  the  pit,  be  an  image  of  misfortune  and  help- 
lessness. We  find  entirely  the  same  antithesis,  Ps.  40 :  3.  "  He 
brought  me  up  also  out  of  a  horrible  pit,  out  of  the  miry  clay,  and 
set  my  feet  upon  a  rock.'^  2.  The  way  in  which  the  covenant  peo- 
ple, according  to  v.  13,  shall  be  delivered  from  their  distress  by  a 
brave  effort,  favored  by  the  Lord,  shows,  that  it  is  not  a  carrying 
away  into  exile,  connected  with  a  deprivation  of  all  the  means  of 
defence,  which  is  intended.  Finally,  it  must  still  be  added,  that  the 
supposition  of  a  captivity  in  a  strange  land,  being  here  the  subject 


118  ZECHARIAH  9:  11.— 10:  12. 

of  discourse,  presupposes  one  of  two  erroneous  hypotheses,  viz.  either 
the  reference  of  v.  1 1 ,  to  something  past,  or  the  spuriousness  of  the 
second  part. — We  now  e.xamine  more  closely  what  distress  and 
what  misery  here  presented  themselves  to  the  spiritual  eye  of  the 
prophet.  The  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  likewise  the  later  Christian 
interpreters,  (comp.  the  collections  by  Mark,  and  those  still  more 
complete  by  Miinden,  Dissert,  ad  h.  I.  Helmstadt)  almost  unani- 
mously refer  the  passage  to  the  spiritual  distress  and  misery,  from 
which  the  Messiah  should  deliver.  But  this  is  plainly  erroneous. 
The  distress  in  this  verse  is  the  same  from  which,  v.  12,  deliverance 
is  promised  ;  and  from  the  more  accurate  description  of  this  deliver- 
ance, in  v.  13,  it  appears,  that  it  should  consist  in  a  victorious  con- 
flict against  the  Greeks.  According  to  this  close  connexion  of 
V.  11-  13,  which  is  undeniable,  the  distress  can  be  no  other  than 
the  oppression  experienced  from  Alexander's  successors  in  the  king- 
dom of  Syria.  This  is  so  very  obvious,  that  it  surely  would  not  have 
been  overlooked,  if  critics  had  not  been  led  astray  by  the  supposition, 
founded  on  ignorance  of  the  prophetic  vision,  that  it  would  be  un- 
natural for  the  prophet  to  make  a  sudden  transition  from  the  Messi- 
anic time  to  an  earlier  period,  from  the  highest  deliverance  to  an 
inferior  one.  The  greater  portion  of  them  were  so  blinded  by  this 
supposition,  that  they  explained  the  whole  portion  allegorically ; 
others,  as  Theodoret  and  Mark,  feeling  how  unnatural  this  would 
be,  suppose  that  the  portion  from  v.  13  referred  directly  to  the  times 
of  the  Maccabees  ;  certainly  with  less  consistency  than  the  rest,  as 
Cyril,  Cocceius,  Ch.  B.  Michaelis  ;  since  v.  13  sq.  cannot  possibly 
refer  to  any  other  subject  than  the  two  foregoing,  with  which  they 
are  most  closely  connected  by  ■'P. 

V.  12.  "  Return  to  the  stronghold  ye  prisoners  of  hope.  To-day 
I  still  declare  ;  The  double  will  I  return  to  you."  "  Turn  back  to 
the  stronghold,"  has  been  the  subject  of  many  false  interpretations. 
One  of  the  most  common  is  that,  according  to  which  Zion  or 
Jerusalem  is  understood  by  the  stronghold,  and  the  prophet  ex- 
horts those,  who  still  remain  in  exile,  to  return  to  their  native  land. 
The  difficulty  that  Jerusalem  was  an  open  place  in  the  time  of 
Zechariah,  and  was  not  fortified  again  until  a  later  period,  by  Ne- 
hemiah,  they  endeavoured  to  remove  in  various  ways.  Calvin  sup- 
poses Jerusalem  to  be  called  a  stronghold,  because  the  protection  of 
the  Lord  surrounds  it  as  a  wall  of  fire  :  "  Etsi  enim  Judcea  tunc 
nan  adeo  inunita  erat,  imo  neque  ipsa  Hierosolyma  altos  muros  vel 


ZECHARIAH  9:11.  — 10.  12.  119 

validas  turres  haberet,  crat  tavieri  dei  munitio,  et  quidem  inexpugna- 
hilis.  —  Zacharias  in  ilia  rcrum  omnium  penuria  docct  esse  satis 
prcBsidii  in  uno  deo."  Jahn  finds  an  intimation  of  the  future  forti- 
fication of  Jerusalem  ;  others,  as  Mark  and  Grotius,  an  exhortation 
to  return  to  God,  as  the  true  bulwark  of  those  who  flee  to  him  for 
refuge.  Others  finally,  as  Rosenmiiller,  after  the  Chaldee  paraphrast, 
explain  :  "  Revcrtimini,  ut  fiatis,  h.  e.  iterum  Jiatis  civitotcs  muni- 
tee;"  against  which  Mark  justly  observes,  that  S  connected  with  2W 
could  naturally  point  out,  as  it  does  everywhere  else,  only  the  ter- 
minus niotus  ad  quern.  All  these  interpretations  have  arisen  from 
mistaking  the  very  obvious  contrast  of  the  stronghold  and  the  pit, 
an  attention  to  which  shows  at  once  that  p"^^5,  locus  inaccessus, 
munitus,  in  like  manner  as  the  rock,  the  high  place,  &c.,  in  nu- 
merous passages,  is  only  an  image  of  security  and  prosperity.  The 
imper.  -niiy  stands  for  fut.,  to  express  the  thought,  that  the  return 
depends  on  nothing  else  but  the  will  of  the  covenant  people,  just  as 
chap.  10  :  1,  "  ask  of  the  Lord  rain,"  i.  e.  ye  need  only  ask  rain.  — 
By  the  address,  "  prisoners  of  hope,"  the  prophet  calls  the  attention 
of  his  people  to  the  covenant  and  the  promises,  which,  even  in  the 
deepest  misery,  afforded  them  a  pledge  of  their  future  deliverance. 
—  Drn-o:  has  been  correctly  understood  by  Michaelis  alone  of  all 
the  older  interpreters  :  "  Loquitur  hie  deus,  non  quasi  eminus  futura 
commonstrans,  sed  quasi  diem,  qui  futurus  erat,  prcesentem  jam 
stitissef."  The  prophet  is  transferred  in  the  spirit  to  the  time  when 
the  oppression  of  the  covenant  people  has  reached  its  summit,  and 
thence  beholds  its  approaching  end.  Without  this  supposition,  suffi- 
ciently grounded  in  a  correct  view  of  the  nature  of  prophecy,  it  is 
inconceivable  how  a  stress  so  entirely  peculiar  can  be  laid  by  the 
subjoined  DJ,  on  to-day.  Moreover,  this  transition  to  the  time  of  the 
oppression,  some  hundred  years  distant,  is  placed  beyond  a  doubt 
by  the  preceding  address:  "  Return  to  the  stronghold,  ye  prisoners 
of  hope."  —  "I  will  render  back  to  thee  double,"  viz.  of  the  pros- 
perity which  thou  formerly  possessed  ;  parallel  passages,  which 
Zechariah  probably  had  in  view,  are  Is.  40  :  2,  "  That  she  receives 
of  the  Lord  double,  D^bss,  for  all  the  punishments  of  her  sins;  " 
61:7,  "  Instead  of  your  shame  will  I  give  you  double,  n;i.t^p  ;  in- 
stead of  reproach,  they  shall  rejoice  over  their  inheritance;  in  their 
land  they  shall  possess  double  ;  everlasting  joy  shall  be  to  them." 

V.  13.   "  For  I  bend  to  me  Judah,  Jill  the  boic  with  Ephraim,  and 
raise  up  thy  sons,  O  Zion,  agaitist  thy  sons,   O  Javan,  and  rnake 


120  ZECH ARI AH  9  :  11 .  - 10  :  12. 

thee  like  the  sword  of  a  hero."  The  prophet  here  more  particularly 
described  the  distress,  and  the  way  in  which  the  deliverance  from  it, 
predicted  in  general  in  the  preceding  verse,  should  take  place.  By 
the  help  of  the  Lord,  (Calvin  :  "  Quid  arcus  per  se  poterit,  nisi  ten- 
daturl  Deinde  nisi  excutianiur  sagittce,  arcus  ipse  jacebit,")  they 
shall  obtain,  notwithstanding  their  own  weakness,  splendid  victo- 
ries over  their  powerful  oppressors,  the  Greeks.  By  a  bold  figure 
the  prophet  represents  Judah,  as  the  bow  bent  by  the  Lord, 
Ephraim,  as  the  arrow  shot  by  him,  to  express  the  thought,  that 
Judah  and  Ephraim  would  both  take  a  part  in  the  glorious  strug- 
gle, and  perhaps  also  intimates  a  certain  subordination  of  Ephraim 
to  Judah.  A  figure  somewhat  similar  has  been  adduced  by  Jahn, 
from  Abulfeda,  {Annal.  3Ioslem.  t.  III.  p.  474.)  The  host  ap- 
pears there  as  the  bow,  the  leader  as  the  arrow  shot  from  the 
same.  According  to  the  accents,  nii*p..  does  not  belong  to  the  fore- 
going, but  the  following  words.  It  is  unnecessary  to  depart  from 
their  authority  ;  nay  the  connexion  with  what  precedes,  assumed  by 
many  interpreters,  is  even  untenable.  For  ""nx^.n  then  loses  one  of 
its  two  objects,  and  must  necessarily  have  a  suff.  referring  to  r\wp„. 
—  The  only  correct  interpretation  of  the  words  Dnss  'nxHn  nK/p. 
is  :  "I  fill  the  bow  with  Ephraim."  Mark  unjustly  objects  that 
the  arrow  does  not  fill  the  bow,  ("  Itvplere  aliquid  aliqua  re  de 
collectione  et  copia  dicitur,  arcui  vero  singida  ad  singulos  jactus 
imponuntur  spicula,")  an  objection  which  Drusius,  though  in  an 
unsatisfactory  manner,  sought  to  obviate  by  the  remark  :  "  Impleri 
arcus  intclligitur,  cum  sagittce  crehrcB  per  eum  emittuntur."  As 
only  one  arrow  can  be  shot  with  the  bow,  it  is  full  as  soon  as  this 
is  applied.  Abundant  examples  are  found  in  Syriac,  a/w//  bow,  for 
one  furnished  with  an  arrow.  Is.  21 :  15,  and  "to  fill  the  bow,"  for 
to  supply  it  with  an  arrow,  Ps.  11  :  2,  as  a  free,  though  not,  as  J.  D. 
Michaelis  supposes,  a  verbal  translation  of  the  Hebr.  na/p  pn  and 
n>m.  najp...  Among  the  remaining  interpretations,  many  of  which 
are  exceedingly  arbitrary,  that  of  Jerome  deserves  notice  :  "  Quasi 
arcum  implevi  Ephraim,"  among  the  moderns  defended  by  Michae- 
lis (Supplem.  p.  1504),  according  to  which  Ephraim,  as  well  as 
Judah,  is  represented  under  the  image  of  a  bow  in  the  hand  of  the 
Lord.  But  it  is  liable  to  the  objection,  that  the  omission  of  the  one 
object,  although  this  in  itself  is  not  untenable,  must  yet  not  be  as- 
sumed without  necessity  ;  besides  the  unsuitableness  of  attributing 
a  double  bow  to  the  same  archer,   and  the  more  so,  since  the  last 


ZECHARIAH  9:  11.  — 10:  12.  121 

comparison  of  Zion  with  a  sword  renders  the  mention  of  different 
kinds  of  arms  probable.  Another  false  interpretation,  as  it  is  found, 
among  others,  in  Jarchi,  "  Arcu  implebo  luanum  Ephraimi,"  with 
a  comparison  of  2  Kings  9 :  24,  is  objectionable,  not  only  on  account 
of  the  collocation  of  the  words,  which  plainly  should  give  promi- 
nence to  ^l^^'p  ,  as  the  first  object,  but  also  the  feebleness  of  the  sense, 
in  contrast  with  the  first  member,  where  Judah  himself  appears  as 
the  bow  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord.  —  "  I  awake  thy  sons,  O  Zion, 
against  thy  sons,  O  Javan."  These  words  have  involved  those, 
who  introduce  false  hypotheses  for  the  interpretation  of  this  portion, 
in  no  small  embarrassment.  The  older  interpreters,  who  explained 
the  vvhole  portion  allegorically,  assume,  that  the  Greeks  stand  here 
by  Synecdoche  for  all  heathen  nations,  who  should  be  constrained 
by  the  Gospel.  This  supposition,  however,  is  entirely  groundless, 
even  if  we  leave  out  of  view,  that  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  the 
vvhole  portion  is  altogether  arbitrary.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  a 
species  is  not  seldom  rendered  prominent  by  the  prophets,  where 
they  intend  the  whole  genus ;  but  then  there  must  be  a  ground  for 
this  individualization.  Thus,  e.  g.,  no  people  can  stand  for  all  the 
enemies  of  the  Theocracy,  which  has  not  either  before,  or  at  the 
time  of  the  prophet,  sustained  towards  it  a  hostile  relation,  or  be- 
come already  in  his  time  an  object  of  peculiar  terror.  The  neces- 
sity of  such  a  ground  the  older  interpreters  seem  also  to  have  felt  in 
the  present  instance.  But  the  owa  which  they  have  given  is  exceed- 
ingly strange  :  "  Pei'  Grcecos  significat  omnes  gentiles,  orta  nimirum 
hac  loquendi  consuetudine  tx  eo,  quod  pleraque  pars  Orientis  olim 
Greece  loquebatur."  So  Drusius  and  several  others,  urging  at  the 
same  time,  that  in  the  New  Testament  the  heathen,  under  the  name 
of  Greeks,  are  opposed  to  the  Jews,  In  this  they  intentionally  for- 
got to  distinguish  the  times  of  Zechariah  from  those  of  the  New 
Testament.  —  The  recent  Rationalist  interpreters  were  involved  in 
still  greater  embarrassment  by  this  passage.  Their  fundamental 
principle,  that  the  prophets  constantly  prophesied  only  of  what  lay 
within  the  political  horizon  of  their  time,  was  here  in  danger  of  suf- 
fering a  sensible  shock.  The  difficulty  increased,  as  soon  as  the 
prophecy  was  referred,  as  it  was  by  several,  to  the  time  of  Uzziah. 
Different  expedients,  alike  arbitrary,  were  resorted  to.  Fliigge 
asserted,  that  Javan  plainly  signified  here  the  same  as  Damascus 
and  Hamath,  chap.  9:1,  and  endeavoured  to  show  in  an  especial 
excursus,  1.  c.  p.  86  sq.,  that  the  pure  Hebrew  writers  have  in  gen- 

VOL,    II.  16 


122  ZECHARIAH  9;  11.  — 10;  12. 

eral  never  understood  by  Javan,  the  land  of  Greece.  Forberg  sup- 
poses the  prediction  of  a  war  against  the  Greeks,  even  in  the  time 
of  Isaiah,  would  not  be  strange,  if  we  only  comp.  Amos.  1  :  9,  10  ; 
Joel  4 :  4-7.  But  we  see  not  what  these  passages  can  prove,  since 
they  by  no  means  speaic  of  a  war  against  the  Greeks,  which,  under 
the  circumstances  of  that  period,  is  altogether  inconceivable.  The 
land  of  Greece  is  rather  named  only  as  pne  of  the  most  distant 
lands,  into  which  individual  Israelites  had  been  carried  prisoners  by 
the  traffic  in  slaves,  not  through  the  fault  of  its  inhabitants,  but  of 
the  Tyrians,  against  whom  alone  on  this  account  the  divine  punish- 
ment is  threatened.  Rosenmiiller  asserts,  in  order  to  maintain  the 
position  that  the  Greeks  here  stand  in  general,  by  metonymy,  for  the 
heathen  enemies  of  the  covenant  people,  in  defiance  of  all  history, 
that  the  Macedonians  in  the  time  of  the  prophet  had  risen  to  such 
power,  that  they  filled  all  the  inhabitants  of  western  Asia  with  terror. 
Eichhorn  (Hebr.  Proph.  III.  p.  424)  resorts  to  the  most  desperate 
means  in  order  to  place  the  composition  of  the  prophecy  in  the 
period  after  Alexander  the  Great,  when  the  Greeks  were  actually 
the  most  powerful  nation  in  all  hither  Asia.  But  these  forced  ex- 
pedients are  unnecessary,  so  soon  as  we  proceed  without  prejudice 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  passage.  The  name  Javan,  to  which 
the  Homeric  forms,  Jaon  and  Jaones,  as  well  as  the  Syriac,  Jaunoje, 
approach  the  nearest,  and  which,  for  this  very  reason,  we  must  not, 
with  J.  D.  Michaelis,  hastily  change  into  Jon,  designates  the  Greece 
of  the  Hebrews  in  a  wider  sense,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that 
Alexander,  Dan.  8  :  21,  is  called  king  of  the  land  of  Greece.  Nu- 
merous traces  of  an  original  wider  import  of  the  name,  even  among 
the  Greeks  themselves,  have  been  pointed  out  by  Bochart,  Phaleg, 
III.  3,  cap.  154.  The  prophet,  now  raised,  indeed,  by  divine 
illumination  above  the  horizon  of  his  time,  represents,  in  passing,  the 
victory  which  the  Jews  under  the  Maccabees,  by  the  aid  of  the 
Lord,  should  gain  over  the  Grecian  rulers  of  Syria,  as  it  had  already 
been  fully  predicted  by  Daniel.  The  nearer  the  prophetic  order 
approached  its  termination,  the  more  necessary  it  became  that  the 
holy  seers,  who  still  remained,  should  apprize,  not  only  their  con- 
temporaries, but  also  their  successors  to  the  time  of  Christ,  that  the 
Lord  had  deposited  for  them,  in  the  prophecies,  a  treasure. of  conso- 
lation and  strength  in  their  distresses,  the  exact  prediction  of  which 
afforded  them  the  proof,  that  they  were  not  under  the  control  of 
chance,  but  of  their  God,  and  at  the  same  time  the  pledge,  that  the 


ZECHARIAH  9:  11.  — 10:  12.  123 

predicted  deliverance  would  no  less  surely  come,  (comp.  the  more 
full  remarks  on  this  subject  in  Beitr.  I.  p.  191  sq.)  —  This  reference 
of  the  passage  is  so  very  obvious,  that,  as  we  have  before  remarked, 
even  several  defenders  of  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  whole 
portion,  and  of  the  reference  to  the  Messianic  times,  cannot  refrain 
from  regarding  it  at  least  as  the  lower  sense,  and  the  one  first  in- 
tended. Thus  says  Theodoret  :  'aXXu  yaq  xat  inl  twv  May-idovav  wg 
iv  tvnm  iiigag  ^tay,E  rj  nQocpr^rsiCi '  oq^riaavxa  yug  t^?  2^ia}V  t«  jiuva  inl 
T«  Tb)v  "EXlrivoiv,  eTQiipavTo  is  Tag  noXXag  rcov  Maxidovav  fivgidSag  xal 
TQonaiov  eyBiQixvTEg  inavrjk&ov  vmricpoqoi,  xal  to  xutuXv&sv  &voiaaTrjQiov 
rj/sigav. 

V,  14.  "And  the  Lord  will  appear  over  them;  and  his  arrow 
goes  forth  as  the  lightning  y  and  the  Lord  will  blow  with  the  trum- 
pet;  he  moves  in  the  storms  of  the  south."  The  wonderful  aid  which 
God  affords  his  people  is  represented  under  the  image  of  that  where- 
in bis  omnipotence  is  most  strikingly  exhibited  in  nature,  viz.  a 
thunderstorm,  as,  only  far  more  fully,  in  Ps.  18,  on  which  Calvin 
remarks  :  "  Summa  hue  redit,  deum  ilium,  qui  omnes  mundi  partes, 
quoties  ita  visum  est,  concutit,  uhi  Davidi  liberator  adesse  voluit, 
non  minus  aperte  ceriisque  indiciis  apparuisse,  quam  si  virtutem 
suam  sursum  et  deorsum  in  omnibus  creaturis  exeruisset."  The 
Lord  draws  near  in  the  thunderstorm,  the  lightnings  are  his  arrows, 
the  thunder  the  trumpet  wherewith  he  gives  to  his  host  the  signal 
for  the  assault.  The  image  is  strictly  carried  through,  except  only 
that  the  arrows  of  God  are  compared  with  the  lightning,  not  the 
lightnings,  as  in  Ps.  18  :  15,  ("  He  sent  his  arrows  and  scattered 
them,  lightnings  in  abundance,  and  put  them  in  confusion,")  repre- 
sented directly  as  the  arrows  of  God.  —  Several  interpreters  take 
or?"''?.]'!.,  in  the  sense,  "  in  their  front,"  since  they  here  find  an  allu- 
sion to  the  pillar  of  smoke  and  fire,  which  guided  the  Israelites 
through  the  wilderness,  Exod.  13  :  21,  22,  14 :  19,  24.  This  ex- 
planation is  not  against  usage,  since  Sj,»  is  employed  of  every  thing 
that  is  higher  than  another.  Comp.  Ewald,  p.  610.  But  the  expla- 
nation over  them,  over  their  heads,  is  more  agreeable  to  the  figure 
of  a  thunderstorm.  The  Lord  appears  in  the  thunderstorm  over  his 
people,  his  host,  and  thence  hurls  the  lightnings,  his  arrows,  at  the 
enemy.  —  Storms  of  the  south  occur  also.  Job  37 :  9  ;  Is.  21  :  1,  in 
the  latter  place  in  reference  to  Babylonia,  as  peculiarly  violent, 
while  elsewhere  those  from  the  east  commonly  appear  as  the  most 
vehement.  Comp.  Bochart,  Hieroz.  II.  c  102. 


124  ZECHARIAH  9,  11  —  10:  12. 

V.  15.  "  The  Lord  of  Hosts  will  protect  them ;  they  eat,  tread 
underfoot  sling-stones,  drink,  make  a  tumult  as  from  loine,  become 
full  as  the  sacrificial  bowls,  as  the  corners  of  the  altar."  Israel 
appears  here,  as  Numb.  23  :  4,  under  the  figure  of  a  lion,  "which 
does  not  lie  down  until  he  devours  prey,  and  drinks  the  blood  of  the 
slain  ;  "  they  eat  not,  indeed,  as  several  interpret,  the  good  things 
of  the  enemy,  but  their  flesh,  as  plainly  appears  from  the  following 
word,  drink,  referring  to  the  blood.  Comp.  chap.  12  :  6  ;  Is.  49  :  26  ; 
"  I  make  your  oppressors  eat  your  flesh,  and  they  shall  drink  of 
your  blood,  as  of  must."  The  phrase  pSp-'J^x  ''^^^]  is  explained 
by  most  interpreters,  "  they  subdue  by  sling-stones."  Thus  of  old, 
the  Seventy  :  Kal  y-ajaxwaovai  avTuvg  iv  Xi&oig  atptrdovrjc.  Jerome  : 
"  Tanta  crit  ruina  GrcBcorum,  ut  non  dicatn  gladiis,  sed  jactu  lapi- 
dum  etfundarum  rotatibus  opprimantur."  Likewise  Mark,  Michae- 
lis,  Theiner,  Winer,  and  others.  This  interpretation  is  to  be  reject- 
ed even  on  account  of  its  feebleness,  so  little  suited  to  the  dithyram- 
bic  elevation  of  the  rest  of  the  verse.  The  only  true  interpretation 
is,  "  they  tread  sling-stones  under  their  feet,"  so  that  the  enemies, 
in  order  to  designate  their  weakness  and  contemptibleness,  are  them- 
selves represented  as  sling-stones.  The  figure  of  the  lion  is  then 
carried  forward.  That  portion  of  the  prey  which  he  cannot  devour, 
he  proudly  treads  upon  with  his  feet.  This  interpretation  is  favored, 
1.  by  the  parallelism.  As  in  the  second  member  every  thing  which 
follows  'irs'^  relates  to  the  blood,  so  here  also  must  whatever  follows 
^^Dii  be  referred  to  the  flesh.  2.  The  parallel  passages.  Entirely 
analogous  is  chap.  10  :  5,  "  They  are  as  heroes  trampling  on  the 
dirt  of  the  streets;  "  where  the  enemy,  just  as  they  are  here  repre- 
sented as  sling-stones,  appear  as  dirt  of  the  streets,  while  they  are 
only  therewith  compared  by  Mtcah,  chap.  7:10,  who  is  less  bold.  In 
another  respect  those  passages  are  parallel,  where,  in  the  figure  bor- 
rowed from  wild  animals,  the  eating  and  trampling  under  foot  are 
connected  with  one  another.  Thus  Mic.  5:7,  "  Israel  will  be 
among  the  nations  as  a  lion  among  the  beasts  of  the  woods,  as  a 
young  lion  among  the  flocks  of  sheep,  who,  passing  through,  at  once 
tramples  under  foot  and  tears  in  pieces,  while  no  one  is  able  to 
deliver."  Dan.  7:7,"  It  devoured  and  brake  in  pieces  and  stamp- 
ed the  residue  with  his  feet."  3.  The  manifest  antithesis  between 
J^'2P..'.ii55i  and  "in.  ''J3N  in  the  following  verse.  As  there  the  Israelites 
appear  under  the  image  of  the  most  precious  stones,  crown-stones, 
so  must  the  meanest  of  all  .stones,  sling-stones,  here  designate  their 


ZECHARIAH  9 :  11.  —  10  :  12.  125 

enemies.  The  verb  K/^D  stands  here  accordingly  in  its  original 
meaning,  to  tread  under,  which  does  not  indeed  occur  elsewhere  in 
Hebrew,  (in  Mic.  7  :  19,  where  Winer  assumes  it,  the  usual  meaning, 
to  subjugate,  is  the  more  suitable  :  "  Peccatmu  concipitur  immitis 
instar  tyranni,  cujus  ferociam  divina  reprcssura  sit  gratia."  Mi- 
chael.) but  its  existence  is  evident  from  the  derivative  tJ'^:?.,  quod 
pedibus  subjicitur,  scabellum,  and  it  also  occurs  in  the  Syriac. — 
W.T},  "they  make  a  noise,"  signifies  the  drunkenness  of  the  Israelites 
with  victory  and  joy.  —  \''.\  IDP  is  taken  by  several  as  in  the  accus. 
governed  by  inti^  But  more  correctly  others,  "  as  wine,"  i.  e.  "  as 
those  who  drink,  wine."  This  interpretation  has  in  its  favor  the  natural 
connexion  with  the  verb  immediately  preceding,  the  suitableness  of 
the  concise  expression,  indicating  a  whole  proposition  by  a  single 
word,  to  the  character  of  the  whole  verse  ;  and  lastly,  in  a  very 
peculiar  manner,  the  parallel  passage,  chap.  10  :  7,  "  Their  heart 
rejoices  as  wine,"  for  "  as  though  they  had  drunk  wine."  That  in 
such  cases  we  need  not,  as  several  have  done  here,  supply  a  Jp 
requires  now  no  farther  proof  —  In  the  phrase,  "  they  become  full 
as  the  sacrificial  bowl,"  the  article  shows  that  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand by  p"^lp  every  sacred  bowl,  but  only  those  in  which  the  blood, 
after  all  the  veins  of  the  victim  had  been  opened,  was  received  by 
the  priests,  and  in  part  sprinkled  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  of 
burnt  sacrifice,  (comp.  Lund,  jud.  Alterlh.  p.  658.)  The  article 
refers  back  to  ^^^^"Q,  as  the  sacred  bowl,  sc.  which  is  full  of  blood, 
comp.  14  :  20.  —  "  As  the  corners  of  the  altar."  The  blood  was  prop- 
erly sprinkled,  not  against  the  corners,  but  the  horns  of  the  altar 
which  were  upon  them.  The  prophet,  however,  here  mentions  the 
corners,  because  he  considers  the  horns  as  belonging  to  them.  Sev- 
eral, therefore,  have  been  mistaken  in  concluding  from  this  passage, 
that  the  horns  of  the  altar  were  only  its  four  corners,  (comp.  Lund, 
1.  c.  p.  199.) 

V.  16.  "  And  the  Lord  grants  thctn  prosperity  in  this  day,  his 
people  as  a  flock.  For  they  shall  be  croton-stones  raising  themselves 
up  on  his  land.''  ir^tyin  does  not  here  stand  for  mere  rescue  and 
deliverance,  but  moreover  for  the  imparting  of  prosperity  in  general. 
This  appears  even  from  a  comparison  with  that  which  the  shepherd 
affords  to  the  flock  ;  still  more,  however,  from  the  second  part  of 
the  verse,  where  the  particle  '3  indicates,  that  its  contents  must  be 
already  included  in  ir^ir^.  After  |Xi'^  it  is  most  natural  to  supply 
rtt'in,  "  as  a  flock"  ;  for,  as  a  shepherd  takes  care  of  his  flock,  he 


126  ZECHARIAH  9:  11.  — 10:  19. 

takes  care  of  his  people.  Several,  as  Drusiiis  and  Michaelis,  take 
|i<]f  as  standing  with  T?>'  in  stat,  const.  "  as  a  flock  of  his  people,"  ut 
decet  saloare  gregem  jjopuli  sui,  in  comparison  with  Dnx  |Xi*,  ores 
hominum,  Ez.  36  :  37,  38.  But  this  interpretation  would  be  admis- 
sable  only  in  case  i'-^  had  no  suff.\  the  suff.  excludes  every  com- 
parison, and  the  supposition  of  the  caph.  veritatis,  by  which  it  has 
been  attempted  here  also  to  escape  from  the  particle  of  comparison 
^,  is  groundless,  comp.  Ewald,  p.  614  ;  Winer  s.  v.  —  The  second 
part  of  the  verse  is  very  variously  interpreted  ;  the  correct  explana- 
tion is,  "  For  in  thy  land  they  raise  themselves  up  as  crown-stones." 
Induced  by  the  comparison  of  the  enemies  with  sling-stones,  the 
prophet  represents  the  Israelites  under  the  figure  of  costly  precious 
stones,  which  set  in  high  crowns,  that  stand  in  the  holy  land  of  the 
Lord,  widely  diffuse  their  radiance.  This  interpretation  has  in  its 
favor,  besides  supplying  the  only  suitable  antithesis  to  the  sling- 
stones  in  V.  15,  that  it  only  takes  "tn  in  its  established  sense,  and 
that  '3,  in  v.  17,  then  stands  completely  in  its  place.  For  the  im- 
age of  the  radiating  precious  stones  already  includes  in  itself  all  the 
glory  of  the  Israelites,  which,  in  v.  17  sq.,  is  particularly  recounted. 
DDiJOH'  not  as  a  pure  passive,  but  in  the  usual  sense  of  Hithpael,  in 
which  it  also  occurs,  Ps.  60 :  6.  The  suf.  in  innnx  refers,  as  well 
as  that  in  i^s;',  to  the  Lord,  not  to  the  people,  who  had  just  been 
spoken  of  in  the  plural.  That  it  is  the  land  of  the  Lord  in  which 
the  Israelites  attain  to  this  honor,  constitutes  at  the  same  time  its 
cause  and  the  pledge  of  its  continuance,  and  heightens  their  pros- 
perity and  their  dignity.  We  now  take  a  survey  of  the  various 
interpretations.  Some,  as  Mark,  explain,  "  Boundary  stones  are 
raised  on  this  land,"  On  the  contrary,  1.I3  never  occurs  in  the  gen- 
eral sense  sepai'atio,  which  is  indeed  its  original  meaning,  but  only 
of  a  special  kind  of  separation,  that  of  a  Nazarite.  Another  objec- 
tion is  the  feebleness  of  the  sense,  here  especially  unsuitable,  and 
the  impossibility  of  accounting  for  the  "'3  at  the  beginning,  and  '^i  in 
V.  17,  Many  other  interpreters  explain  after  the  Vulgate,  "  Sacred 
stones  are  erected."  They  have  in  view  memorials  of  victory  and 
divine  deliverance,  and  some  of  them  here  find,  with  Cornelius  a 
Lapide,  an  allusion  to  the  twelve  stones,  which  Joshua  erected  on 
the  opposite  bank,  after  the  passage  through  the  Jordan,  This  in- 
terpretation has  indeed  more  to  recommend  it  than  the  former;  but 
yet  such  a  sense  of  in.  cannot  be  proved,  and  the  double  '3  can 
scarcely  be  accounted  for. 


ZECHARIAH,  Chap.  10.  127 

V.  17.  "For  how  great  is  his  goodness,  how  great  his  beauty ! 
Ctrn  makes  the  young  men  and  must  the  maidens  increase."  The 
suff.  in  n5£3  and  in  r?;  is  referred  by  most  interpreters  to  the  peo- 
ple, by  some  of  those,  who,  as  Rosenmuller,  correctly  refer  that  in 
innix  to  Jehovah,  But  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  such  an 
anomaly.  It  is  very  appropriate,  that  the  prophet  should  praise  with 
an  exclamation  of  wonder  the  goodness  of  God,  which  he  manifests 
to  his  people,  and  the  beauty  in  which  he  appears  to  him.  This 
explanation  even  gives  a  finer  sense  than  the  other.  It  is  confirmed 
by  the  parallel  passage,  Jer.  31  :  12;  "  They  come  and  exult  on  the 
height  of  Zion,  and  flow  together  to  the  goodness  of  Jehovah,  to 
the  corn  and  the  must  and  the  oil,"  which  so  harmonizes  with  the 
passage  before  us,  that  its  use  by  Zechariah  might  almost  be  assum- 
ed ;  comp.  also  v.  14,  "  My  people  shall  be  full  of  my  goodness." 
Ps.  31  :  20.  "  How  great  is  thy  goodness,  ^iitJ,  which  thou  hast  pre- 
pared for  those  who  fear  thee."  Ps.  25  :  7.  —  Corn  and  wine  are 
here  first  mentioned,  as  a  part  for  the  whole  of  the  divine  blessings. 
Where  there  is  an  abundance  of  both,  there  is  a  rapid  increase  of 
the  population.  Altogether  similar  is  Ps.  72  :  17 ;  "  If  also  there  be 
only  a  handful  of  corn  in  the  land,  yet  shall  its  fruit  rustle  on  the 
summit  of  the  mountains,  like  Lebanon,  and  they  shall  bloom  forth 
from  the  city,  as  the  grass  of  the  earth,"  by  which  latter  words,  at  the 
same  time,  the  figure  of  making  to  spring  up  in  this  verse,  is  illus- 
trated. The  abundance  of  the  means  of  subsistence,  and  increase  of 
the  population,  belongs  to  the  Theocratic  blessings,  as  the  opposite  to 
the  Theocratic  judgments.  The  specification  of  young  men  and 
maidens,  indicates  that  the  children  should  not  be  prematurely 
taken  away,  as  happens  in  the  time  of  public  calamity,  but  attain  to 
full  age,  comp.  Is.  65  :  20,  "  There  shall  no  more  be  there  children, 
who  do  not  reach  their  days,  or  old  persons,  who  do  not  fill  up  their 
years." 


Chap.  10. 

V.  1.  "Ask  the  Lord  for  rain  at  the  time  of  the.  latter  rain; 
immediately  the  Lord  causes  lightnings,  and  gives  to  them  an  abun- 
dant rain,  to  each  one  grass  on  his  field."  The  verse  stands  in  the 
closest  connexion   with   the    foregoing.     By   misunderstanding  the 


128  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10. 

imper.  i^^Kj,  most  interpreters  regard  it  not  as  a  co'itinuation  of  the 
preceding  representation,  but  as  the  commencement  of  a  new  train 
of  thoucrht.  The  prophet  is  supposed  to  proceed  from  the  promises 
to  an  exhortation,  which  contains  at  the  same  time  a  reproof.  Thus 
e.g.  Calvin:  "  Postqiiam  ostendit  Zach.,  dcum  it  a  fore  beneficum 
erga  Judcsos,  ut  nihil  illis  dcsit  ad  beatarn  et  foslicem  vitam,  nunc 
perstringit  eorum  incredulitatem,  quod  non  exspectmt  a  domino,  qws 
paratus  esset  large  illis  prcestare.  Qvoniam  ergo  per  eos  tantum 
stabat,  quominus  fruerentur  omni  copia  bonorum,  insimulat  eos  hie 
ingratitudinis."  Most  interpreters  suppose  ir^^!D  to  be  especially 
emphatic  ;  from  the  Lord,  not  as  heretofore  from  idols  ;  and  appeal 
particularly  to  the  '2  at  the  beginning  of  v.  2,  as  admitting  of  no 
other  interpretation.  But  it  is  plain  they  entirely  miss  the  sense. 
Michaelis  very  justly  remarks  :  "  Tmperativus  non  onerosus,  sed 
beyieficii  ac  privilegii  et  juris  in  rem  cum  annexa  spe  ccrtce  exaudi- 
tionis."  The  exhortation  to  ask,  expresses  the  highest  readiness  of 
God  to  give  what  is  desired,  i.  q.  ;  Ye  need  only  ask,  it  requires  a 
bare  request.     Altogether  similar  is  •niK',  chap.  9:  12;  comp.  also 

1  Kings  3:5,  "  God  said  to  Solomon  ;  Ask  what  I  shall  give  thee." 

2  Kings  2:9;  Ps.  2  :  8.  After  this  apostrophe,  which  contains 
indirectly  the  promise,  the  prophet  returns  to  the  direct  expression 
of  it,  as  in  chap.  9  :  12.  The  phrase  "  at  the  time  of  the  latter 
rain  "  is  merely  as  a  part  for  the  whole,  an  expression  of  the  thought, 
"  at  the  time  when  ye  need  rain"  ;  and  we  cannot  thence  conclude, 
that  the  latter  rain  was  more  necessary  for  the  growth  of  vegetation, 
than  the  former.  Elsewhere,  as  Joel  2 :  23,  both  are  united.  The 
choice  of  the  name  Jehovah  is  not  without  design.  Rain  was  one 
of  the  Theocratic  blessings,  which  the  people  enjoyed  in  case  of 
true  dependence  on  the  Lord.  The  prophet  has  in  view  the  pas- 
sage, Deut.  II  :  13-  15,  the  words  of  which  he  partly  employs;  "  if 
thou  wilt  hearken  to  my  commandments,"  &c.,  "  so  give  I  thee  the 
rain  of  your  land  in  its  time,  the  former  and  the  latter  rain,  and 
thou  gatherest  thy  corn,  thy  wine,  and  thy  must.  Also  give  I  grass 
{:^'V!i))  on  thy  field  for  thy  cattle."  The  rain,  among  the  multitude 
of  the  Theocratic  blessings,  is  here  rendered  prominent  only  as  a 
part  for  the  whole.  The  lightnings  are  mentioned  as  its  precur- 
sors, Jer.  10  :  13,  "  He  makelh  lightnings  with  rain."  Ps.  135  :  7. 
Dm~''DD,  a  peculiarly  abundant  rain,  as  is  usual  in  a  thunderstorm. 
The  connexion  of  two  synonymes  in  the  stat.  constr.  is  of  itself 
emphatic,  e.  g.,  Ps.  40  :  3 ;   and  D;^^   differs  from  1£0D,  so  that  the 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10.  129 

latter  signifies  rain  in  general,  the  former  a  violent  rain.  The 
phrase,  "  every  one,"  &,c.,  indicates  the  extent  of  the  blessing, 
which  is  not  limited,  as  is  usually  the  case  with  thundershowers, 
to  one  particular  place.  30^ ,  according  to  several  interpreters,  com- 
prehends in  a  more  general  sense  all  that  serves  for  the  nourishment 
of  man,  and  so  it  is  certainly  found  in  some  passages  in  Genesis. 
But  the  later  usage,  and  particularly  the  comparison  of  the  cited 
passage  of  Deuteronomy,  where  the  Dtyj;  is  limited  to  the  food  of 
beasts,  shows  that  the  prophet  mentions  one  species,  only  as  a  part 
for  the  whole.  Michaelis  and  Rosenmiiller  erroneously  take  JT^b^a 
as  a  periphrasis  of  the  genitive.  The  comparison  with  the  cited 
passage  of  Deuteronomy  shows,  that  nTEf3  is  to  be  connected  not 
with  ^^V,  but  with  |n\  The  field  (which  belongs  to  the  man)  is 
i.  q.  hiis  field,  comp.  '"[iti^a. 

V.  2.  "  For  the  teraphim  speak  nothingness,  and  the  soothsayers 
see  lies,  and  the  dreams  speak  vanity  ;  falsely  do  they  console  ; 
therefore  do  they  wander  as  a  flock ;  arc  harassed  because  they  have 
no  shepherds."  "'5  does  not  refer  to  v.  1  alone,  but  to  the  whole 
compass  of  the  divine  promises  contained  in  the  preceding  context. 
"  I  will  have  compassion  on  my  people  and  abundantly  bless  them ; 
for  now  they  have  fallen  into  great  distress  by  their  apostasy  from 
me."  '3  consequently  gives  the  reason  of  the  divine  assistance  ;  the 
misery  and  necessities  of  the  people,  whom  God  for  the  sake  of"  his 
covenant,  sealed  with  blood,"  can  never  forsake.  The  phrase,  "  for 
the  teraphim  speak,  &c.,  therefore,"  is  i.  q.  "  for  because,"  &c.  The 
verbs  U'?J,  ^^n,  r3"i,  most  interpreters  regard  as  proper  preterites, 
alleging  that  the  manifestations  of  apostasy  from  God  here  describ- 
ed, belong  rather  to  the  period  before,  than  after  the  exile.  For  the 
refutation  of  this  view,  an  appeal  to  ^"i3n^  and  JJ.']^  would  not  be 
sufficient.  The  fvt.  not  unfrequenlly  expresses  the  idea  of  custom, 
even  in  the  case  of  actions,  which,  frequently  repeated  in  former 
times,  have  now  ceased,  comp.  Ewald,  p.  527.  But  a  sufficient  ob- 
jection is  furnished  by  ^1pD^^  in  v.  3,  which  cannot  be  understood 
otherwise,  than  as  a  proper /wt  As  the  punishment  of  the  M'icked 
shepherds  is  there  predicted  as  future,  so  the  misery  of  the  people, 
caused  indirectly  by  the  shepherds,  directly  by  their  own  apostasy 
from  God,  cannot  possibly  be  considered  as  already  past.  The  prae- 
ters  are  accordingly  to  be  taken  as  prophetic  prseters.  But  the 
inquiry  now  arises,  how  the  prophet  could  place  in  the  future,  man- 
ifestations of  apostasy  from  God,  which^   according  to  the  testimony 

VOL.    II.  17 


130  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10. 

of  history,  hardly  appeared  any  more  in  the  present,  (comp.  never- 
theless the  accounts  of  false  prophets  even  in  the  new  colony,  Neh. 
6:  10,  &-C.,  and  the  mention  of  conjurors,  Mai.  3:  12,)  but  on  the 
contrary  had  been  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  past.  That  that 
solution  of  the  difficulty,  which  assumes  as  an  account  of  it,  that  the 
second  part  was  composed  before  the  exile,  is  not  the  true  one,  ap- 
pears, apart  from  every  thing  else,  even  from  the  verbal  agreement 
of  this  passage  with  several  of  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah,  whom  Zech- 
ariah  most  frequently  imitates,  comp.  e.  g.  Jer.  27  :  9, "  And  ye  shall 
not  hearken  to  your  prophets,  and  your  soothsayers,  and  your  dream- 
ers, and  your  augurs,  and  your  magicians."  29  :  8,  "  Let  not  your 
prophets  and  your  soothsayers  deceive  you,  and  ye  shall  not  hearken 
to  the  dreams  which  ye  dream."  Ez.  21  :  34,  "  While  the  false  proph- 
ets see  for  thee  a  nullity,  and  while  the  soothsayers  prophecy  for  thee 
lies."  22  :  28,  "  They  see  a  nullity  and  prophesy  to  thee  lies."  34  :7, 
"  See  ye  not  vain  visions,  and  speak  lying  prophecies  ?  "  The  true 
explanation  is  this.  Shortly  before,  and  during  the  exile,  in  the  most 
calamitous  times  of  the  state,  false  prophets  in  greater  numbers  than 
at  any  former  period  appeared  in  Jerusalem,  as  well  as  among  the 
exiles  ;  and  the  willing  obedience,  which  the  people  rendered  to  them, 
was  one  chief  cause  of  their  misery.  By  foretelling  nothing  but  pros- 
perity, they  effaced  the  impressions,  which  the  threatening  predic- 
tions of  the  true  prophets  had  made,  whom  they  endeavoured  to  rep- 
resent as  gloomy  fanatics,  and  therefore  hindered  the  people  from  that 
conversion,  which  was  the  only  means  of  their  deliverance.  Jer.  23  : 
9,  10,  brings  against  the  priests  and  false  prophets  the  charge,  that, 
through  their  guilt,  the  whole  land  was  filled  with  crimes  and  curs- 
ings. "  They  strengthen,"  he  says,  v.  14,  "  the  hands  of  the  evil- 
doers, that  they  repent  not."  "  From  the  prophets  of  Jerusalem," 
he  complains,  v.  15,  "  crime  has  gone  out  over  the  whole  land." 
Now  Zechariah,  who  had  taken  for  his  model  chiefly  the  prophecies 
of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  and  to  whom  the  fearful  effects  of  this 
manifestation  of  the  apostasy  were  so  obvious,  represents  under  its 
image  that,  which  in  future  times  should  lead  the  people  away  from 
the  law  of  God,  and  cause  them  to  apostatize  from  him.  That  this 
supposition  is  entirely  natural  is  evident  even  from  the  analogies  in 
this  chapter  alone.  What  is  it  else,  e  g.,  when,  v.  10,  Egypt  is 
used  to  designate  the  land  from  which  the  covenant  people  shall  at 
a  future  period  be  brought  back?  Or  when,  according  to  v.  11,  God 
conducts  Israel  anew  through  the  Red  Sea  ?      Is  not  the  future  here 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10.  131 

also  represented  under  the  image  of  the  past,  which  is  essentially 
identical  with  it,  and  only  differs  in  its  individual  character  1 — The 
teraphim  (corap.  Jahn,  Archdol.  III.  p.  504,)  occur  for  the  last  time, 
before  we  meet  with  them  in  this  passage,  in  Ezek.  21 :  26,  where 
the  king  of  Babylon,  uncertain  what  resolution  to  form,  consults 
them.  Among  the  Hebrews,  they  were  intermediate  beings,  by 
which  they  sought  to  learn  the  future  from  Jehovah  ;  the  consulta- 
tion of  them,  therefore,  did  not  involve  total  idolatry.  This  appears 
from  Judges  17  :  5,  comp.  with  18  :  5,  6  ;  Hos.  3  :  4.  This  remark 
makes  the  passage  harmonize  with  those  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel 
concerning  the  false  prophets  shortly  before  and  during  the  exile,  in 
which  they  always  appear  as  those,  who  prophesied  falsely  in  the 
name  of  Jehovah,  and  not  in  the  name  of  a  strange  God.  As  inter- 
mediate beings,  the  teraphim  in  every  religion  to  which  they  belong, 
must  have  a  different  place  and  import.  Among  the  different  senses 
of  px,  that  oi  nullity,  the  ground  meaning,  must  here  be  assumed  on 
account  of  the  three  following  names,  which  correspond  with  it.  Nul- 
lity ;  prophecies  followed  by  no  corresponding  result,  especially  prom- 
ises of  a  happy  future,  by  which  they  deceive  their  votaries.  They  see 
lies.  Zechariah,  even  when  speaking  of  the  false  prophets,  employs 
the  verb,  which  designates  the  peculiar  form  in  which  the  true 
prophets  received  their  revelations,  (comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  221,)  because 
the  false  hypocritically  imitated  the  ixaraaig  of  the  true  ;  and  of  this 
they  were  sometimes  perfectly  aware,  and  at  others  more  or  less 
unconscious.  In  like  manner,  Ezekiel  in  the  cited  passages  ;  the 
creation  of  the  objects  of  their  vision  by  their  own  agency,  while 
they  were  presented  by  God  to  the  inward  eye  of  the  true  prophets, 
he  designates,  chap.  13:  2,  by  the  appellation,  "prophets  out  of 
their  own  heart;"  comp.  v.  3,  "They  walk  according  to  their  heart, 
and  according  to  that  which  they  have  not  seen." — nioSn  is  not 
to  be  connected  with  the  xiB^n  in  the  stat.  constr.  after  the  Syriac 
and  several  later  interpreters,  partly  on  account  of  the  accents, 
partly  on  account  of  the  parallelism,  which  requires  that  N.lti'n  should 
correspond  with  |ix  and  '^'^M-  Just  as  little  can  we,  with  some 
other  interpreters,  take  niDbn.  in  the  sense  dreamers.  The  word 
never  occurs  besides  in  this  sense,  and  the  parallel  passage,  Jer. 
27:  9,  shows,  that  here  also  the  usual  meaning,  dreams,  is  the  true 
one.  Dreams  are  personified,  and  made  to  speak.  The  article  in 
><\^n  points  to  the  contrast  with  another  kind  of  dreams,  those  which 
speak  the  truth. —  |?~^.l^  therefore,  viz.  because  they  give  themselves 


132  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10. 

up  to  these  lying  prophets,  and,  confirmed  by  them  in  their  false 
security,  are  kept  from  conversion,  the  condition  of  all  Theocratic 
blessings. —  The  verb  >'DJ,  to  depart,  here  especially  of  the  straying 
of  sheep  from  their  protecting  folds,  and  of  their  dispersion,  comp. 
Jer.  50  :  6,  "  My  people  are  like  perishing  sheep,  whose  shepherds 
lead  them  astray  ;  they  make  them  wander  on  the  mountains,  they 
go  from  mountain  to  hill,  and  forget  their  folds."  —  Because  they 
have  no  shepherd,  i.  e.  no  one  who  really  deserves  this  name,  who 
discharges  the  duties  of  his  office.  For  it  appears  from  v.  3,  that 
the  people  should  not  be  without  shepherds,  though  they  rather  de- 
served the  name  of  wolves. 

V,  3.  "  3Iy  anger  is  kindled  against  the  shepherds,  and  I  will 
punish  the  he-goats  ;  fur  the  Lord  of  hosts  visits  his  flock,  the  house 
of  Judah,  and  makes  them  like  his  parade-horse  m  war."  The  mis- 
erable condition  of  the  people,  their  destitution  of  shepherds,  had 
been  represented  in  the  preceding  verse  as  their  own  fault.  But 
the  Lord  hero  promises,  notwithstanding,  that  he  will  deliver  them 
from  their  wicked  leaders,  the  culpable  instruments  of  their  punish- 
ment. Very  properly  Calviu  :  "  Hinc  apparet,  quam  cara  sit  dec 
salus  hominum,  quoniam  vindictam  denuntiat  pastoribus,  qui  tamen 
non  ezercuerant  tyrannidem  suam,  nisi  erga  homines  dignos  tali 
pana.  Fuit  enim  hcsc  justa  merces  scelerum,  quod  dominus  voluit 
grassari  lupos  pastorum  loco.  Sed  quanquam  tale  supplicivm  meriti 
essent  Judcei,  deus  tamen  irascitur  pastoribus,  quoniam  in  genere 
semper  solicitus  est  dc  sua  ccclesia.  —  Deo  enim  semper  adoptio  sua 
pretiosa  est :  quoniam  dignatus  fuerat  populum  ilium  eligere,  fieri 
aliter  non  potuit,  quin  ruinam  ejus  indigne  ferret."  The  interpre- 
ters hesitate  whether  by  the  shepherds  to  understand  merely  the  civil 
magistrates,  or  at  the  same  time,  the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  people. 
It  is  true,  that  both  sometimes  occur  combined  under  this  appella- 
tion (comp.  chap.  11:8);  here,  however,  the  prophet  seems,  like 
Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah,  (comp.  e.  g.  chap.  23,  where  the  prophet,  v. 
1-8,  threatens  the  wicked  shepherds,  the  kings,  and  magistrates, 
then,  V.  9  to  the  end,  the  false  prophets,  and  the  wicked  priests,  as 
the  second  cause  of  the  calamities  of  the  people,)  in  most  passages 
to  have  in  view  only  the  former.  This  appears  from  the  antithesis 
in  V.  4,  where  the  discourse  relates  only  to  able  civil  and  military 
leaders,  which  the  Lord  would  give  to  the  people  instead  of  their 
former  base  ones.  It  is  also  evident  from  the  expression,  "  They  are 
harassed,  because  they  have  no  shepherd,"  where  by  the  ^2  the  evil 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10.  133 

shepherds  are  represented  as  the  direct,  and  by  the  p'V  the  lying 
prophets,  or  generally  the  evil  spiritual  rulers  of  the  people,  as  the 
indirect  cause  of  their  misery.  Comp.  Num.  27  :  17  ;  Ezek.  34:  5. 
Finally,  the  figurative  representation  of  the  deliverance  of  the 
flock,  by  freeing  them  from  their  evil  shepherds,  is  very  common  in 
Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah,  and  probably  derived  from  them  by  Zecha- 
riah ;  comp.  e.  g.  Jer.  23,  where  the  Lord  promises  to  punish  the 
shepherds,  to  collect  the  flock  from  their  dispersion  in  all  lands, 
and  give  them  good  shepherds,  at  last  the  Messiah  ;  Ezek.  34 :  10, 
where  God  delivers  the  flock  out  of  the  hand  of  their  evil  shepherds, 
and  now  undertakes  to  be  himself  their  shepherd.  We  have  here 
only  still  to  inquire,  whether  we  are  to  refer  this  with  Mark,  Michae- 
lis,  and  others,  to  native,  or  with  Drusius,  Jahn,  Koster  (1.  c.  p.  172), 
to  foreign,  evil  magistrates.  That  the  latter  were  chiefly  intended 
is  at  least  highly  probable  from  the  emphatic  contrast  in  v.  4,  where 
a  prominence  entirely  peculiar  is  given  to  the  thought,  that  the  new 
leaders  provided  for  the  people  by  God  would  be  out  of  the  midst  of 
them.  Accordingly  prophecy  and  fulfilment  most  accurately  coin- 
cide, although  in  the  time  of  the  latter,  native  evil  rulers  of  the  peo- 
ple also  were  not  wanting.  —  By  the  he-goats,  according  to  Jahn,  in 
the  antithesis  with  the  shepherds,  are  meant  the  inferior  officers  of 
the  people  ;  but  the  he-goats  are  plainly  only  a  different  figurative 
designation  of  the  same  persons.  The  image  is  taken  from  the  he- 
goats  which  march  at  the  head  of  the  flocks,  comp.  Jer.  50  :  8, 
Avhere  the  leaders  are  admonished,  "  Be  as  the  he-goats  before  the 
flocks."  Is.  14  :  9.  In  a  manner  entirely  similar,  Ezek.  34:  17,  18, 
announces,  that  God  would  judge  between  the  sheep  and  the  he- 
goats,  and  deliver  the  former  from  the  injustice  of  the  latter.  The 
verb  lp_3  with  S^',  "  to  visit  for  punishment,"  with  the  ace. ;  to  visit 
only  to  benefit.  "'3  gives  the  reason  of  the  punishment  to  be  inflicted 
on  the  evil  rulers.  It  is  the  tender  care  of  the  Lord  for  his  people, 
and  his  will  to  deliver  them  from  their  misery.  They  are  his  flock  ; 
therefore  he  can  no  longer  suffer  them  to  be  ruined  by  evil  shep- 
herds.—  The  last  member  is  explained  by  Jonathan,  Jarchi,  Kim- 
chi,  Jahn,  and  others  :  "  He  makes  them  like  a  horse  whose  excel- 
lence is  in  war,  therefore  like  an  excellent  war-horse."  But  the 
interpretation,  "  he  makes  them  his  parade-horse  in  war,"  has  in  its 
favor  not  only  the  accents,  but  also,  what  is  of  considerable  impor- 
tance in  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah,  the  great  boldness  and  sublimity 
of  the  figure.     Judah  is  here,  in  the  war  which  the  Lord  carries  on 


134  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10 

against  the  oppressors  of  his  people,  his  stately,  richly-ornamented 
war-horse,  just  as  before  Judah  was  his  bow,  and  Ephraim  his  arrow. 
D  frequently  stands,  where  an  object  is  to  be  represented,  not  as 
different  from  that  compared  with  it,  but  rather  as  perfectly  corre- 
sponding to  its  idea  without  in  such  a  case  losing  the  nature  of  a 
particle  of  comparison,  since  it  even  compares  the  object  with  the 
idea.  Thus  e.  g.  Is.  1:7,  "  Desolation  is  as  a  devastation  by  stran- 
gers," although  the  predicted  desolation  itself  was  to  be  effected  by 
external  enemies,  v.  8,  "  Jerusalem  is  as  a  besieged  city  ; "  although 
Jerusalem  appeared  to  the  prophet,  not,  as  is  commonly  and  errone- 
ously supposed,  to  the  outward  senses,  but  to  the  inward  contempla- 
tion, as  besieged.  A  parade-horse,  Tin  D-lD,  is  a  select  horse,  such 
as  an  earthly  king  is  accustomed  to  ride  in  war,  stately  by  nature, 
and  decorated  with  costly  housings  and  other  ornaments. 

V.  4.  "  Out  of  the  midst  of  him  will  he  the  corner-stone,  out  of 
him  will  he  the  fire  and  battle-hoiv,  out  of  him  will  come  forth  every 
ruler."  That  the  sujf.  in  li^n  does  not  refer  to  God,  as  some  inter- 
preters suppose,  but  to  Judah,  is  evident  even  from  the  parallel  pas- 
sage, Jer.  30:  21,  "  And  his  mighty  one  shall  be  out  of  him,  and 
his  ruler  shall  go  forth  from  the  midst  of  him,"  which  the  prophet 
here  had  plainly  in  view.  The  sense  is.  Having  attained  to  perfect 
freedom  by  the  help  of  the  Lord,  who  gives  victory  to  their  arms, 
they  shall  now  receive  rulers  and  magistrates  from  among  them- 
selves, and  an  independent  power  in  war,  and,  while  they  were  for- 
merly a  prey  to  foreign  conquerors,  they  shall  now  inspire  even 
foreign  nations  with  terror.  —  The  senses  of  niS  are  thus  arranged 
by  Winer.  1,  Angulus.  2.  Turris  muralis.  Nam  in  angulis  mu- 
rorum  exstrui  solehant  turres  et  propugnacula.  3.  Vir  princeps, 
qui  est  propugnacula,  dux.  But  this  arrangement  is  evidently 
wrong.  The  frequent  figurative  designation  of  princes,  or  rulers  of 
the  people,  by  corner  or  corner-stone,  is  rather  grounded  on  the 
comparison  of  the  state  with  a  building,  which  rests  on  the  prince 
as  its  corner-stone.  This  is  evident  from  passages,  like  Ps.  118:22, 
"  The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected,  has  become  the  corner- 
stone ; "  Is.  28  :  16,  "  I  lay  in  Zion  a  precious  corner-stone,"  The 
assertion  also  of  Gesenius  {in  loco),  is  not  altogether  correct,  that 
n:3  in  such  a  case  signifies  exactly  a  corner-stone,  and  therefore 
stands  for  nJDn  |3X,  or  HiSn  t^xS.  The  whole  is  rather  put  for  the 
part  which  it  includes ;  we  must  not,  however,  on  that  account 
regard  both  as  being  verbally  the  same.    We  have  already  met  with  a 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10.  135 

similar  misconception  in  respect  to  the  corners  of  the  altar,  ch.  9  :  16, 
and  it  frequently  occurs  in  the  interpreters,  e.  g.  in  the  supposition 
that  ly^^ti',  root,  in  Isaiah,  sometimes  signifies  exactly  root-sprortt. 
The  opposite  of  what  Isaiah  here  predicts  to  Judah,  Jeremiah 
(51  :  26,)  predicts  to  Babylon:  "  They  will  no  more  take  from  thee  a 
stone  for  a  corner,  and  a  stone  for  a  foundation  ; "  on  which  Michaelis 
justly  remarks  :  "  Scttsus  :  non  erit  ampUus  de  gente  Clial(l<xorum,  qui 
reijjublica;  sustentaculum,  h.  e.  rex  aut  pi'inceps  futurus  sit."  The 
erroneousness  of  the  supposition  of  JNIark,  that  TMiii  here,  as  in  some 
other  passages,  signifies  works  of  defence  built  in  the  corners  of  the 
walls,  appears  from  this  and  the  other  parallel  passages  of  Jeremiah, 
already  cited,  and  moreover  from  nn;.,  which  necessarily  requires  to 
be  figuratively  understood.  This  latter  word  has  been  very  strik- 
ingly explained  by  Lowth  on  Is.  22  :  23,  where  it  is  said  of  Eliakim, 
"  I  drive  him  in  as  a  peg  in  a  firm  place, —  and  they  hang  upon  it 
all  the  splendor  of  his  father's  house."  It  is  customary  in  the  East 
to  furnish  the  inside  of  apartments  with  rows  of  large  nails,  or  pegs, 
which  are  wrought  into  the  wall  when  it  is  built,  (comp.  Chardin,  in 
Harmer's  Observations,  III.  p.  49.)  On  these  firm  nails,  already 
prepared,  they  hang  all  kinds  of  household  stufF.  They  serve,  there- 
fore, as  a  suitable  image  of  those  men  who  are  the  supports  and 
pillars  of  the  whole  being  of  the  state.  On  the  contrary,  this  pas- 
sage of  Isaiah,  as  well  as  the  one  before  us,  has  been  strangely  mis- 
understood by  Gesenius.  "  "ip;,"  he  says,  "  nail  or  peg,  stands  here 
precisely  for  a  firm  dwelling-place,  Ezr.  9  :  8,  Zech.  10  :  4."  —  But 
how  can  a  man  drive  a  firm  dwelling-place  into  a  firm  place  !  How 
would  this  suit  v.  24,  where  it  is  said  of  Shebna  :  "  Then  shall  the 
peg,  driven  into  a  firm  place,  give  way,  and  it  shall  be  cut  off,  and 
fall,  and  the  whole  burden,  which  hangs  upon  it,  breaks."  How  can 
even  the  most  superficial  observer  find  the  sense,  "  firm  dwelling- 
place,"  suitable  in  the  passage  before  us  ?  Parallel  also  is  Ezek. 
15  : 3,  where  the  prophet,  comparing  Israel  with  the  wild  vine,  says, 
"  Can  one  take  from  it  a  peg  in  order  to  hang  thereon  all  instru- 
ments ?  "  On  the  contrary,  those  passages  have  an  entirely  differ- 
ent character,  where  images  are  taken  from  the  pegs  with  which  the 
tent  is  fastened.  The  tcar-bozv  stands  here  for  the  military  power, 
or  the  apparatus  bellicus  in  general.  Thus  not  unfrequently,  "  to 
break  the  bow,"  or  "  strike  it  out  of  the  hand,"  for  "  to  deprive  one 
of  his  armour  and  weapons."  1  Sam.  2:4;  Ezek.  39  :  3;  Hos.  1  :  5. 
—  According  to  the  usual  opinion  of  interpreters,  i^'JU  here  stands 


136  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10. 

in  a  good  sense  for  regent.  But  the  passages  appealed  to  are  not  con- 
clusive. Is.  3:  5,  12,  the  word  is  plainly  used  of  tyrannical  rulers, 
and  Is.  60  :  17,  "  I  establish  thy  magistrates  for  peace,  and  thy 
rulers  ']''.^_^^ ,  for  righteousness,"  plainly  refers  to  the  former  tyranni- 
cal rulers,  as  appears  from  the  immediately  preceding,  "instead  of 
brass,  I  bring  gold  ;  instead  of  iron,  silver."  There  is  not,  how- 
ever, the  smallest  reason  here  to  relinquish  the  usual  sense,  if  we 
only  refer  the  hardness  and  severity  expressed  by  the  word,  not  to 
the  covenant  people,  but  to  their  enemies.  Rightly,  Calvin  :  "  Poti- 
entur  imperio  contra  vicinos,  et  exigent  ah  illis  tributum,  aut  vecti- 
gal,  gucmadmodum  victores  solent  a  subditis."  Similar  is  Isaiah 
14  :  2,  "  They  take  captive  those  who  led  them  captive,  and  rule 
over  their  tyrants."  It  is  in  favor  of  this  interpretation,  that  what 
follows  then  becomes  appropriate. 

V.  5.  "  And  they  are  heroes  trampling  on  the  mire  of  the  streets 
in  war,  and  they  fight,  for  the  Lord  is  toith  them,  and  the  horsemen 
are  put  to  shame."  2  stands  here  again  as  in  v.  3.  Thus,  even  in 
prose,  Neh.  7:2,"  he  is  as  a  true  man,"  i.  q.  he  corresponds  to  the 
idea,  he  is  the  lively  image,  of  a  true  man.  "lyn  D'D^  D'Ql'a,  sev- 
eral translate,  as  Calvin,  Mark,  Michaelis,  "  treading  (viz.  their 
enemies)  in  the  dirt  of  the  streets."  The  latter  is  regarded  as  a 
part  for  the  whole,  to  designate  all  the  hindrances  and  difficulties 
which  the  covenant  people  with  great  perseverance  would  overcome. 
Against  this  interpretation,  besides  the  great  feebleness  of  the  sense, 
is  the  parallel  passage,  Mic.  7  :  10,  where  the  dirt  of  the  streets 
appears  as  an  image  of  the  enemies  themselves,  with  only  this  dif- 
ference, that  in  Micah,  they  are  compared  therewith,  ("  Mine  eyes 
behold  my  enemies,  now  will  they  be  trampled  upon  as  dirt  of  the 
streets,")  while  the  bolder  Zechariah  designates  them  directly  as 
such.  The  passage  has  actually  been  so  -Understood  by  not  a  few 
older  interpreters,  as  Jonathan,  Theodoret,  Cyril,  Grotius ;  and  this 
interpretation,  especially  as  it  is  confirmed  also  by  chap.  9  :  15, 
"  they  trample  on  sling-stones,"  would  certainly  have  been  generally 
adopted,  if  the  construction  of  the  verb  D-n  with  a  following  5,  while 
it  elsewhere  always  takes  the  accus.,  had  not  made  a  difficulty.  The 
way  in  which  "Gesenius,  in  his  Thesaurus,  solves  this  difficulty  : 
"  Et  erunt  instar  heroiim,  qui  hastes  concukant  in  bello,  sicut,  2  pro 
D,  lutum  platearum,"  is  not  suited  to  increase  the  advocates  of  this 
interpretation.  The  true  one  is  rather  the  following,  on  stands 
here,  not,  as  commonly,  in  a  transitive,  but  an  intransitive  sense ; 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10.  137 

properly  they  tread  down,  or  they  tread  about,  on  the  dirt  of  the 
streets.  In  the  same  manner,  Ps.  49:  15,  the  elsewhere  transitive 
synonyme  nnn  is  connected  with  r  of  the  person,  D3  TT^^l,  "  they  will 
tread  about  upon  them."  Here  the  intransitive  meaning  is  indicated 
by  the  form  itself  The  participial  form  Dip  is  not,  as  is  commonly 
supposed  and  even  by  Ewald,  p.  406,  an  unusual  contraction  of  the 
part,  trans.,  but  it  is  a  participial  form  of  the  intransitive  Kal.  This 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  occurs  only  in  intransitive  verbs,  e.  g. 
SJ'iJ,  "iTx,  Dip.  The  only  forms  where  it  is  supposed  to  occur  in  a 
transitive  sense,  'HIJ,  Ps.  22:  10,  and  ^nJ,  Ps.  71  :  6,  rest,  as  may 
easily  be  shown,  on  a  false  interpretation.  The  verb  nu  never 
occurs,  not  even  in  Mic.  4 :  10,  in  a  traiisitive  sense,  and  therefore, 
even  in  the  cited  passage,  nj  cannot  be  understood  as  ^  part,  "tu  is 
not  to  be  derived  from  T-lJ,  but  from  nn,  (comp.  Gesenius  and  Winer 
s.  v.)  —  In  IDD^.J,  "they  war,"  there  is  a  contrast  with  the  hitherto 
passive  conduct  of  the  covenant  people,  their  passive  subjugation. 
Now  by  the  aid  of  the  Lord  brave  warriors  are  formed  from  despised 
slaves.  On  the  contrary,  their  oppressors,  hitherto  the  proud  hostile 
horsemen,  are  covered  with  shame  and  disgrace.  The  appropriate- 
ness of  the  latter  antithesis  makes  it  proper  to  understand  •li^''in  in- 
transitively, with  all  ancient  translators  ;  and  it  occurs  also,  chap. 
9:  5,  and  below,  v.  11.  The  cavalry  in  Dan.  11  :  40,  also  is  desig- 
nated as  the  chief  strength  of  the  host  of  the  Grecian  ruler  of  Sy- 
ria, viz.  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

V.  6.  "  And  I  strengthen  the  house  of  Jtidah  and  give  prosperity 
to  the  house  of  Joseph,  and  I  make  them  dwell;  for  I  have  compas- 
sion on  them,  and  they  shall  be  as  though  I  had  not  cast  them  away, 
for  I  am  the  Lord  their  God  and  will  hear  them.'^  The  relation  in 
which  this  promise  stands  to  the  circumstances  of  Zechariah's  time 
is  well  developed  by  Calvin:  ^^Prosequitur  Zach.  eandem  doctri- 
nam,  netnpe  opus  illud  redemtionis,  cujiis  principium  cernebant  Jud(pi, 
nonfore  mutilum,  quia  dominus  tandem  implebit,  qxiod  ccepit  facere. 
Neque  enim  poterant  acquiesce.re  Judmi  in  illis  principiis,  quce  vix 
centesima  ex  parte  respondebatd  promissionihus  dei.  —  Ergo  in  eo 
nunc  insistit  propheta,  ut  Judcci  patienter  quiescant,  donee  tcmpus 
maturuni  advencrit,  quo  dominus  ostcndat,  se  non  aliqua  tantum  ex 
parte,  sed  in  solidum  popuU  sui  esse  redemtorem."  D^nnivin  is  taken 
by  most  interpreters  after  Kimchi  and  Abenezra,  as  a  forma  mixta 
from  0"'nb'!/;n,  Hiph.  of  2W,  and  D'nDK'in,  Hiph.  of  iB';.  The 
prophet  by  means  of  this  artful  combination  is  supposed  to  express 

VOL.    II.  18 


138  ZECHARIAH  Chai'.  10. 

with  one  word,  what  Jeremiah,  32  :37,  has  expressed  by  a  whole  sen- 
tence :  pmS  D-'jT^pK'n]  nm  m'p^n-Sx  D^nh'c/ni.  This  supposition  has, 
it  is  true,  in  its  favor  the  constant  effort  at  brevity  perceptible  in 
Zechariah  in  relation  to  the  parallel  passages  in  the  older  prophets, 
as  an  effect  of  which  this  strange  combination  need  not  surprise  us, 
especially  if  we  take  into  view  the  time  of  Zechariah ;  although  no 
examples  besides  of  any  such  mixed  form  occur.  But,  nevertheless, 
another  reason  proves  those  to  be  correct,  who  assert  that  Zechariah, 
by  a  permutation  of  the  verbs  U'  with  those  ''D,  peculiar  to  that  late 
period,  has  employed  this  anomalous  form,  instead  of  the  regular 
D^n^ii^in,  (comp.  Ewald,  p.  489.)  The  mention  of  the  return,  in 
particular,  is  here  out  of  place;  the  representation  of  it  does  not 
begin  till  v.  8 ;  here  the  prophet  still  speaks  of  Judah  and  Israel  in 
connexion ;  the  former  had  already  returned  ;  only  to  the  latter, 
most  of  whom  at  least  still  continued  in  exile,  is  the  return  promised 
in  what  follows.  The  verb  to  dwell  is  especially  emphatic.  Hith- 
erto the  covenant  people  in  their  own  land,  under  a  foreign  domin- 
ion, had  been  as  strangers.  Now,  for  the  first  time  after  their 
oppressors  are  vanquished  and  driven  out,  shall  they  become  prop- 
erly dwellers  and  possessors,  as  they  had  been  in  the  times  before 
the  exile.  Similar  is  Ezek.  36:  11,  "I  make  you  to  dwell  as  in 
your  former  time,  and  do  you  good  as  in  your  past  time."  "  And 
they  shall  be,"  "  and  I  will  hear  them,"  is  the  looser  Hebrew  con- 
nexion for,  "  therefore  shall  they  be,  therefore  will  I  hear  them." 
God's  compassionate  benevolence,  and  his  covenant  relation  to  the 
people  of  Israel,  are  the  ground  of  their  deliverance,  comp.  Is.  41:17, 
"I,  Jehovah,  (the  Theocratic  name  of  God,)  will  hear  them.  I,  the 
God  of  Israel,  will  not  forsake  them." 

V.  7.  "  And  Ephraim  is  as  a  hero,  and  their  heart  rejoices  as 
tcine,  and  their  sons  see  it  and  rejoice,  their  heart  exidts  in  the 
Lord.'^  The  prophet,  from  this  verse  onward,  occupies  himself  ex- 
clusively with  Ephraim.  At  first  he  promises  that  descendants  also 
of  the  citizens  of  the  former  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  shall  parti- 
cipate in  the  glorious  struggle ;  he  then  gives  the  greater  promise^ 
that,  after  this  struggle,  the  large  mass  of  the  people  also,  who  dur- 
ing its  continuance  were  still  scattered  in  all  lands,  should  return 
to  their  native  country,  and  to  their  ancient  covenant  relation  to  the 
Lord.  That  the  prophet  occupies  himself  so  earnestly  and  fully  with 
Ephraim,  is  explained,  as  Calvin  rightly  saw,  only  by  the  circum- 
stances of  the  time  in  which  he  lived.     Had  the  predictions  of  the 


ZECHARIAH  Chap    10.  139 

older  prophets  in  reference  to  Judah  then  first  begun  to  be  fulfilled, 
and  did  they  therefore  need,  in  ord6r  that  the  people  might  not  be- 
lieve themselves  deceived,  to  be  resumed ;  much  more  was  this  the 
case  in  regard  to  those  which  related  to  Ephraim.  The  great  mass 
of  this  tribe  were  still  in  exile,  although  a  -part  of  them  had  joined 
themselves  to  the  returning  Jews,  (comp.  Jahn,  Archdol.  2,  1,  p. 
236  sq.,)  and  the  hope  of  the  great  future  restoration,  promised  by 
the  prophets,  had  only  a  weak  point  of  connexion  with  the  present. 
—  With  respect  to  "  as  wine,"  comp.  what  has  been  said  on  9  :  15. 
A  similar  merely  suggested  comparison  is,  "  as  potash,"  Is.  1  :  25, 
for  "  as  potash  purifies,"  comp.  other  examples  in  Ewald,  p.  614. 
That  the  sons  of  the  Ephraimites  should  participate  in  their  prosperi- 
ty, shows  that  it  was  not  to  be  merely  of  a  short  duration.  As  the 
object  of  •IX"^';,  the  whole  contents  of  the  foregoing  prediction  of  pros- 
perity are  to  be  supplied.  The  construction  of  the  verb  S'J  with  3 
is  explained  by  the  circumstance,  that  the  joy  is  considered  as  de- 
pending on  the  Lord, 

V.  8.  The  prophet  now  proceeds  from  that  portion  of  the  Ephraim- 
ites, who  should  take  part  in  the  struggle  of  the  Jews  against  the 
Greeks,  to  the  far  greater  portion,  who  at  that  time  were  still  in 
exile.  —  "  I  loill  hiss  to  them  and  collect  them,  for  I  have  redeemed 
them,  and  they  become  numerous,  as  they  were  before.^'  The  figure 
of  hissing  is  taken  from  the  bee-master,  who,  by  means  of  a  whistle, 
calls  the  swarms  of  bees  out  of  and  into  their  hives,  comp.  Lowth 
on  Is.  5  :  26.  The  meaning  of  the  figure  in  the  passage  is  well  un- 
folded by  Calvin  :  "  Per  verbiim  sihilandi  intelligit  Sack.,  non  fore 
opus  hoc  arduiim  deo,  sicuti  solemns  metiri  ejus  opera,  scnsu  carnis  nos- 
tra'. Qiium  ergo  Judceis  objicere  promtum  esset,  per  varias  terras  et 
sub  divcrsis  gentibus  fratres  suos  esse  dispersos,  ita  ut  collectio  mi- 
nime  esset  crcdibilis,  propheta  occurrit  dicens ;  solo  sibilo  vel  solo  nutu 
deum  posse  ipsos  reducere  in  patriam,  —  utcunque  totus  mundus  co- 
rum  reditum  impediat.  Cohjungi  ergo  debent  hmc  duo  verba  :  Sibilabo 
illis  et  congregabo  eos :  quasi  dixisset  illis  Sach.,  sufficere  deo  solum 
niitiivi,  idn  volet  populum  suum  colligere."  —  '■'' For  I  have  redeemed 
than."  This  is  to  be  understood  of  the  divine  counsel.  As  soon  as 
this  has  once  been  taken,  nothing  can  hinder  the  execution.  The 
question  now  arises  respecting  the  restoration  here  mentioned.  Gro- 
tius  supposes,  that  the  prophet  here  announces  that  the  victory  of 
the  Maccabees,  and  the  happy  condition  of  the  land  afterwards,  will 
be  to  many  of  the  Israelites,  still  in  a  strange  land,  an  inducement  to 


140  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10. 

return.  But  the  sense  of  the  promise,  which  is  far  more  comprehen- 
sive is  hereby,  to  say  the  least,  not  exhausted,  especially  as,  v.  9,  the 
return  of  the  exiles  is  placed  in  close  connexion  with  their  conver- 
sion. The  return  of  the  ten  tribes  always  belongs  in  the  prophets 
to  the  Messianic  hopes.  We  must,  therefore,  with  Calvin,  Mark, 
and  others,  assume  that  the  prophet,  chiefly  at  least,  had  in  view 
here  the  reception  of  the  Israelites  into  the  Theocracy  by  Christ. 
That  this  was  represented  by  a  return  to  Palestine,  the  seat  of  the 
Theocracy  at  the  time  of  the  prophet,  is  justified  by  the  general 
character  of  the  prophetic  discourse,  and  is  particularly  free  from 
difficulty  in  the  case  of  one  with  whom  this  figure,  in  general,  so 
much  prevails,  (comp.  e.  g.  v.  II.)  Appropriately  Calvin:  "  Sig- 
nificat  propheta,  Christum  sic  fore  caput  ecclesice,  ut  colligat  ex 
omnibus  terrte  partibns  Jiidceos,  qui  prius  dispersi  fiierant :  aique 
ita  extcndatur  restitutio  promissn  ad  omnes  tribus." 

V.  9.  "  And  I  2oin  sow  them  among  the  nations,  and  in  distant 
lands  will  they  remember  me,  and  with  their  children  live  again  and 
return."  —  The  exile,  which  seemed  to  be  a  sign  of  the  perpetual 
rejection  of  Israel,  shall  be  a  direct  means  of  his  conversion  and 
restoration.  This  Moses  had  already  prophesied,  Deut.  4  :  27  sq., 
"  The  Lord  will  scatter  you  among  the  nations.  —  And  ye  will  there 
serve  strange  gods.  —  Finally,  however,  ye  will  seek  the  Lord  your 
God,  and  find  him,  because  ye  will  seek  him  with  all  the  heart,  and 
all  the  soul.  In  thy  distress  thou  wilt  at  a  future  period  return  to 
the  Lord."  In  like  manner,  Ezek.  6:  II,  "And  they  that  escape 
of  you  shall  remember  me  among  the  nations,  whither  they  shall  be 
carried  captive,  —  and  loathe  themselves  on  aacount  of  the  evil  that 
they  have  done, —  and  know  that  I-am  the  Lord."  This  prophecy, 
which,  in  reference  to  the  Jews,  had  already  in  part  been  fulfilled 
by  the  change  of  mind  they  experienced  in  the  exile,  and  by  the 
return  which  resulted  from  it,  the  prophet  here  resumes  in  reference 
to  the  Israelites.  The  verb  jni  is  frequently  used  of  the  dispersion 
of  the  covenant  people  as  a  punishment.  We  cannot,  however,  be 
satisfied  with  this  meaning  here ;  the  context  and  parallelism  require 
that  the  words,  and  I  will  sow  them,  should  contain,  at  least,  at  the 
same  time  something  of  a  joyful  character.  The  dispersed  Israelites, 
who  are  hereafter  to  be  still  more  scattered,  shall  be  a  seed  sown  of 
God,  which  will  bring  forth  rich  fruits.  An  entirely  similar  double 
sense,  "  God  will  disperse,"  and  "  God  will  sow,"  is  found  in  the  name 
Jezreel,  which  Hosea  gives  to  one  of  his  sons,  the  type  of  the  Israel- 


ZECHARIAir  Chap.  10.  141 

itish  people,  comp.  1:4,  2  :  24.  Worthy  of  remark  is  the  predic- 
tion here,  which  has  been  confirmed  by  the  result  of  a  still  wider 
dispersion  of  the  Israelites  than  that  which  then  happened.  In  the 
expression,  and  they  live,  the  image  is  intimated  in  one  word,  which 
Ezekiel,  chap.  37,  has  so  well  carried  out;  comp.  e.  g.  v.  14,  "And 
I  put  my  spirit  within  you,  and  ye  revive,  and  I  make  you  rest  in 
your  land."  The  often  misinterpreted  phrase,  tvith  your  c/nldren, 
designates  here  also,  as  v.  7,  the  permanency  of  the  benefit.  This 
is  shown  by  the  parallel  passage  of  Ezek.  37:  25,  "And  they  in- 
habit the  land,  which  I  have  given  to  my  servant  Jacob,  they  and 
their  cliildren,  and  their  children's  children  for  e/ver." 

V.  10.  "  And  I  bring  them  back  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and 
out  of  A&hw  loill  I  collect  them,  and  to  the  land  of  Gilead  and  Leb- 
anon will  I  bring  them,  and  they  shall  find  no  room."  This  verse 
is  an  individualization  of  the  foregoing.  The  interpreters  here  find 
a  difliculty  in  the  mention  of  Egypt  as  a  land  out  of  which  the 
exiles  shall  be  brought  back,  while  no  carrying  away  of  the  citizens 
of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  to  Egypt  can  be  pointed  out  in 
history.  Most  assume,  that,  at  the  destruction  of  this  kingdom  by 
the  Assyrians,  many  of  its  inhabitants  fled  into  Egypt,  to  avoid  be- 
ing carried  away.  It  is,  however,  a  suspicious  circumstance,  that 
history  is  entirely  silent  on  this  point.  But,  although  the  fact  were 
conceded,  still  this  passage  cannot  be  referred  to  it.  The  comparison 
of  V.  11,  particularly  shows,  that  the  Egyptians,  as  well  as  the  Assy- 
rians, must  be  regarded  as  powerful  oppressors  of  the  Israelites, 
while,  in  the  case  supposed,  they  must  have  given  the  Israelites  a 
hospitable  reception.  It  therefore  only  remains  for  us  to  assume, 
that  Egypt  is  here  mentioned  because  it  was  the  first  land  in  which 
the  Israelites  had  suffered  an  oppressive  captivity,  (comp.  Is.  52  :  4, 
"  My  people  went  down  in  the  beginning  to  Egypt,  in  order  to  dwell 
there,  and  Ashur  did  them  violence  in  the  end,")  that  it  is  a  fio-ura- 
tive  designation  of  the  lands,  in  which  the  ten  tribes  were  in  exile 
at  the  time  of  the  prophet,  and  would  be  at  a  future  period.  The 
transition  to  this  mode  of  representation,  appears  in  passages  like  Is. 
10  :  24,  "  Fear  not,  my  people,  before  Ashur,  who  smites  thee  with  a 
staff  and  raises  his  rod  against  thee  as  Egypt,"  Dn:^D  ':]'^^5.  As  now 
it  was  the  constant  practice  of  the  prophets,  and  the  poets  gener- 
ally, to  place  the  comparison  instead  of  the  thing  compared,  the 
transition  was  easy  to  the  representation  which  prevails  in  the  pas- 
sage before  us.     In  favor  of  it,  however,  not  only  analogie.s,  (comp. 


142  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10. 

Vol.  I.  p.  231,  and  above,  on  chap.  5  :  10,)  but  even  passages  can 
be  produced,  where  Egypt  itself  is  placed  in  a  manner  entirely  simi- 
lar. The  two  most  remarkable  are  Hosea  8  :  13,  "  Now  will  he 
remember  their  sins  and  punish  their  misdeeds  ;  they  shall  return  to 
Egypt."  Chap.  9:3,"  They  shall  not  dwell  in  the  land  of  the  Lord, 
and  Ephraim  turns  back  to  Egypt,  and  in  Ashur  they  shall  eat  what 
is  unclean."  It  is  obvious  that  here,  the  lands  into  which  the  Israel- 
ites should  in  future  be  carried  away  captive,  are  figuratively  desig- 
nated by  Egypt,  a  land  in  which  they  had  at  first  been  reduced  to 
bondage,  and  a  return  to  which  could  not  have  been  in  the  mind  of 
the  prophet,  who  anticipated  danger  only  from  the  Assyrians.  It  is 
further  remarkable,  that  the  prophet,  chap.  9  :  6,  extending  the  im- 
age even  farther,  names  Memphis  as  a  city  where  the  Israelites 
would  find  their  grave.  —  If  now  it  is  established,  that  Zechariah 
in  this  place  does  not  mean  Egypt  proper,  so  neither  by  Ashur 
connected  therewith,  here  and  v.  11,  are  we  to  understand  any  par- 
ticular kingdom.  Ashur  is  rather,  in  like  manner,  a  figurative  de- 
signation of  those  kingdoms  in  which  the  Israelites  were  in  exile 
during  the  time  of  the  prophet,  and  would  be  at  a  future  period. 
This  demonstration,  however,  does  not  entirely  invalidate  the  proof, 
which  has  been  derived  from  the  passage  before  us,  against  the 
integrity  of  Zechariah,  (comp.  e.g.  Bertholdt,  Einl.  IV.  p.  1714.24.) 
The  question  still  arises,  how  a  prophet,  after  the  captivity,  could 
choose  the  Egyptians  and  Assyrians  as  the  type  of  the  oppressors  of 
his  people,  while  he  omitted  the  Chaldeans,  who  had  been  their  most 
destructive  enemies.  This  difficulty  would  be  invincible,  if  the  proph- 
et were  here  speaking  of  the  Jews  alone,  or  even  merely  of  the  whole 
of  the  covenant  people.  When,  e.  g.  Is.  27:  13,  it  is  said,  "The  ex- 
iles in  the  land  of  Ashur,  and  the  banished  in  the  land  of  Egypt, 
come  and  pray  before  the  Lord  on  the  holy  mountain  of  Jerusalem," 
although  Egypt  and  Ashur  are  here  in  like  manner  typical,  as  Gese- 
nius  very  justly  remarks,  ("  instead  of  the  different  lands  of  the 
world  in  which  the  Jews  have  been  scattered,  Assjria  and  Egypt  are 
here  mentioned,")  yet  Kleinert  is  in  the  right,  (on  the  Genuineness  of 
Is.,  I.  p.  317  sq.,)  when  he  considers  this  passage  as  an  incontrovert- 
ible proof  against  the  composition  of  the  whole  portion,  chap.  24 -27, 
in  the  exile,  and  in  favor  of  its  gennineness.  Or  when,  Isaiah 
19 :  23  sq.,  Egypt  and  Ashur  are  mentioned  as  the  two  kingdoms 
heretofore  most  hostile  to  the  covenant  people,  and  to  one  another, 
which  in  the  time  of  the  Messiah  should  be  clcsely  united  with  the 


I 


ZECHARlAll  Chap.  10.  143 

covenant  people,  and  with  one  another,  by  the  common  worship  of 
the  Lord,  and  live  in  the  most  peaceful  intercourse  ;  so  is  the  gen- 
uineness of  this  portion,  oven  tliereby,  sufficiently  established.  But 
in  the  passage  before  us  the  difficulty  is  only  apparent.  The  propb.et 
speaks  solely  of  the  Ephraimites.  For  them  Egypt  and  Assyria 
had  actually  been  exclusively  the  most  dangerous  enemies  of  former 
time  ;  therefore  they  only,  and  not  the  Chaldeans,  who  did  not  make 
their  appearance  until  the  extinction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes, 
were  suited  to  be  a  type  of  their  enemies  in  general.  Zechariah 
here  occupies  the  same  point  of  view  as  Hosea,  who,  chap.  11  :  11, 
in  reference  to  the  Israelites,  prophesies,  "  they  will  return  out  of 
Egypt  and  Ashur."  Finally,  the  prophet  certainly  had  directly 
before  his  eyes  the  cited  passages,  in  which  Egypt  and  Ashur  are 
connected  in  the  same  relation  with  each  other  as  here.  —  The 
whole  argument  serves  at  the  same  time  to  show  how  little  reason 
there  is  to  protest  against  understanding  the  restoration  to  the  prom- 
ised land  figuratively.  If  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  lands,  out  of 
which  the  Israelites  are  brought  back,  are  to  be  understood  only  as 
types,  what  objection  can  be  urged,  if  the  land  to  which  they  shall 
be  restored,  is,  in  like  manner,  regarded  as  a  type?  —  The  land 
of  Gilead  and  Lebanon  is  here  not  a  designation  of  the  whole  prom- 
ised land,  as  most  interpreters  suppose,  but  specially  of  the  former 
country  of  the  ten  tribes.  This  was  divided  into  two  parts,  that 
beyond  the  Jordan,  the  land  of  Gilead,  and  that  on  this  side,  which 
extended  to  Libanus,  and  therefore  might  suitably  receive  its  name 
from  it. — The  verb  J<i'n  occurs  also.  Num.  11:22,  and  Josh. 
17  :  16,  (comp.  Maurer  on  the  passage,)  in  Kal  and  Niphal,  in  the 
sense  to  suffice,  so  that  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  assume  an  ellipsis 
{non  invenietur  cis,  sell  locus  sufficiens)  ,  which  is  inadmissible  in 
those  passages. 

V.ll.  "And  the  Lord  goes  through  the  ?ea,  the  distress,  and 
smites  in  the  sea  the  leaves,  and  all  the  floods  of  the  Nile  are  put  to 
shame,  and  the  pride  of  Ashur  is  overthrotvn,  and  the  staff  of  Egypt 
shall  yield."  The  former  deliverances  of  the  covenant  people  serv- 
ed them  as  a  pledge  of  those  that  were  future  ;  since  they  revealed,  at 
the  same  time,  the  power  and  the  will  of  the  Lord  to  help  them, 
who  is  at  all  times  the  same.  Nothing,  therefore,  is  more  natural 
than  that  the  prophet  in  the  description  of  the  future  should  bring  to 
memory  the  past,  and  thus,  as  it  were,  call  upon  the  Lord,  not  to 
be  unlike  himself,  and  also  strengthen  the  faith  of  the  people  in  the 


144  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  10. 

promises  which  contradicted  indeed  the  appearance  of  things.  This 
frequently  happens  when  the  past  and  future  are  brought  into  com- 
parison, comp.  e.  g.  Is.  51  :  9,  "  Awake,  put  on  strength,  thou  arm 
of  Jehovah,  awake  as  the  days  of  former  times,  as  the  ancient  gen- 
erations." —  "  Art  thou  not  it  who  driedst  up  the  sea,  the  water  of 
the  great  deep,  who  made.st  the  depths  of  the  sea  for  a  way  on 
which  the  redeemed  went  through  1  "  But,  in  like  manner  also,  they 
often  employed  the  past  as  a  type  for  the  future  ;  they  frequently  trans- 
ferred the  former  in  its  individual  character  to  the  latter,  which  is 
explained  partly  from  the  flowing  together  of  figure  and  reality, 
proper  to  poetry  in  general,  and  partly  from  the  nature  of  prophecy 
in  particular.  Thus  it  is  said,  Jer.  31  :  2,  "  The  people  find 
favor  in  the  wilderness,  who  remain  of  the  sword  ;  the  Lord  goes  to 
bring  Israel  to  rest :"  as  the  Lord  once  pitied  his  people,  when  sorely 
plagued  in  the  wilderness,  on  account  of  their  continual  apostasy, 
and  led  the  remnant  of  them  to  Canaan  ;  so  also  will  he  pity  them 
in  their  present  distress,  of  which  they  are  themselves  the  cause, 
and  lead  them  back  into  their  native  land.  Thus  Hos.  2:  16,  17, 
"  I  lead  her  into  the  wilderness,  and  speak  to  her  heart,  and  give 
her  her  vineyards  there,  and  the  valley  of  Achor,  for  a  door  of 
hope  ;  "  for,  "  as  I  comforted  Israel  aforetime  in  the  wilderness  by 
promises  of  prosperity,  and  then,  at  the  very  entrance  into  the  land 
of  Canaan,  filled  them  with  joyful  hopes  by  a  sight  of  the  fruitful 
region  :  so  will  I  also  in  the  future  comfort  and  richly  bless  them." 
Especially  remarkable,  however,  is  the  passage.  Is.  11  :  15,  16,  which 
Zechariah  has  so  plainly  imitated,  that  it  must  of  itself  be  sufficient 
to  render  very  suspicious  the  idea,  that  the  second  part  was  compos- 
ed by  an  earlier  writer,  especially  as  it  also  serves  at  the  same  time 
to  prove  other  later  prophets,  between  whom  and  Zechariah  a  simi- 
lar agreement  is  found,  particularly  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  to  have 
been  independent  in  relation  to  him,  —  In  reference  to  the  subject 
of  13;^  interpreters  are  not  agreed.  Several  regard  as  suc.i  n"ji\  So 
Calvin  :  "  transihit  in  mari  affiictio,"  Fliigge,  "  a  plague  passes  over 
the  sea,"  against  which  it  is  a  sufficient  objection,  that  nnv  never 
indicates  active,  but  always  passive  distress.  The  people  is  common- 
ly taken  as  the  subject ;  then  however  the  change  of  persons,  which 
immediately  occurs  without  any  notice,  since  the  following  and  he 
smites  must  refer  to  the  Lord,  is  unnatural.  The  truth  was  seen  by 
Mark.  It  is  the  Lord,  who,  at  the  head  of  the  Israelites  marches 
boldly  through  the  sea,  and  strikes  down  their  proud  opposers,  the 


ZECHARIAII  Chap.  10.  145 

roaring  waves.  "  He  goes  through  the  field  of  floods,  the  victorious 
hero."  A  complete  parallel  is  furnished  by  Ps.  114,  where  the  sea, 
as  it  sees  the  Lord  advance  in  front  of  the  Israelites,  quickly  flees, 
the  terrified  Jordan  turns  back.  It  was  unnecessary  expressly  to 
mention  the  Lord.  Him,  who  was  continually  present  to  the  soul  of 
the  prophet,  who  alone  could  accomplish  such  deeds,  the  only  deliv- 
erer of  his  people.  Altogether  similar  is  Is,  2  :  4,  Mic,  4:3.  In 
respect  to  the  interpretation  of  n;i^  there  is  great  diversity,  though  it 
is  not  difficult,  since  only  one  explanation  of  it  can  be  grammatically 
justified.  After  the  Seventy  {ev  SaXuaar;  azEvfj),  Jerome  (in  maris 
freto),  several,  even  Jahn,  connect  riVi*  with  the  foregoing  D^,  in  the 
sense  nari'oimiess  of  the  sea.  But  against  this  the  simple  grammati- 
cal reason  is  sufficient,  that  ^\  could  not  then  have  the  article,  and 
besides,  to  render  prominent  the  narrowness  of  the  sea,  were  here 
in  the  wrong  place,  since  it  would  rather  serve  to  diminish  the 
miracle;  lastly,  rri^  always  occurs  of  narrowness  in  a  metaphor- 
ical sense,  never  in  a  physical.  How  little  in  such  cases  the 
etymology  suffices  to  prove  a  meaning,  may  be  exemplified  by  our 
word  anguish.  Others,  as  Mark,  Koster,  (I.  c.  p.  44,)  explain  : 
"  Jehovah  transit  per  mare  cum  anxietate."  But  this  interpretation 
belongs  to  the  time  when  every  preposition  was  supplied  at  pleasure, 
which  was  thought  to  be  necessary,  and  moreover,  as  has  been 
already  remarked,  n^^  is  never  spoken  of  an  active,  but  always  of 
a  passive  oppression.  It  only  remains,  therefore,  with  Ch.  B.  Mi-ffeA'  {wUA 
chaelis,  to  take  n^^  as  standing  in  apposition ;  "  he  goes  through^rf  f  t.  _ 
the  sea,  the  distress."     It  is,  therefore,  not  merely  a  crude  cleaving     *  i 

to  the  letter,  regardless  of  all  analogy  and  the  whole  substance  of  the 
prophecy,  when  the  Jewish  interpreters,  as  Jerome  relates,  refer  the 
word  to  a  future  wonderful  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the 
strait  between  Byzantium  and  Chalcedon  ;  it  is  at  the  same  time  a 
gross  misunderstanding  of  the  letter  itself.  Finally,  the  explanation 
of  Jonathan  (Jient  eis  miracula  ct  virtutes,  sicut  factce  sunt  patribus 
eorum  in  mari),  shows,  that  this  misunderstanding  was  not  universal, 
even  among  the  Jews.  —  The  article  in  0^5  points  to  a  definite  sea, 
the  Arabian  gidf,  the  same  through  which  the  Israelites  had  already 
once  been  led,  comp.  Is.  11  :  15,  "  The  Lord  lays  a  curse  upon  the 
tongue  of  the  sea  of  Egypt."  —  In  the  words,  he  smites  the  waves  in 
the  sea,  a  personification  of  the  wave,  as  the  enemy  subdued  by  God, 
lies  at  the  foundation.  The  words,  all  the  floods  of  the  Nile  are 
ashamed,  contain  a  manifest  allusion  to  the  passage  through  the 
VOL,    ti.  19 


146  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

Jordan.  This  comparatively  small  stream,  however,  is  not  sufficient 
for  the  prophet ;  he  mentions  instead  of  it  the  Nile,  as  Is.  11  :  15, 
the  Euphrates.  The  latter,  several  interpreters,  as  Grotius  and 
Mark,  would  here  also  understand  by  "tiN;  ;  Jahn  takes  it  for  the 
Jordan.  But  both  suppositions  are  inadmissible.  It  is  true,  that 
Jeor,  Job  28  :  10,  occurs  in  the  sense  stream,  in  general ;  in  Dan. 
12  :  5  sq.,  of  the  Tigris,  But  in  the  passage  before  us,  the  omission 
of  the  article,  which  is  found  in  Daniel,  shows,  that  the  word  stands 
as  a  proper  name.  As  such,  however,  it  can  mean  only  the  Nile. — 
That  in  the  last  words,  Ashur  and  Egypt,  as  the  most  powerful 
oppressors  of  the  Israelites  formerly,  stand  merely  as  types  of  their 
tyrannical  rulers  in  general,  has  already  been  shown.  Parallel  pas- 
sages are  Is.  10  :  27,   14  :  25,  9  :  3. 

V.  12.  "  And  I  strengthen  them  in  the  Lord,  and  in  his  name 
will  they  loalk,  saith  the  Lord."  In  'r^ip]-y_  the  Lord  is  designated, 
as  he  on  whom  the  strength  of  Israel  depends.  The  use  of  the 
noun  instea?d  of  the  pronoun  is  emphatic.  It  calls  the  attention  to 
what  it  means,  "  to  receive  strength  from  the  Lord,  the  Almighty,  and 
the  living  one."  The  name  of  the  Lord  signifies  the  whole  compass 
of  his  perfections  as  it  is  designated  by  his  name,  the  image  and  the 
expression  of  his  being.  A  walking,  which  is  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  is  one  in  which  his  perfection  reveals  itself  in  all  its  strength. 
Walking,  according  to  the  context  and  parallelism,  cannot  here 
jS5  .♦^Oii"'  «»^ relate  to  the  conduct,  but  must  be  taken  literally. 


Chap. 


Hitherto  had  the  prophet  chiefly  (comp.  however,  chap.  5)  copi- 
ed in  his  prophecies  only  the  joyful  side  of  the  great  picture  of  the 
future  condition  of  the  covenant  people ;  here  another  scene  sud- 
denly presents  itself,  and,  in  describing  it  to  his  hearers  and  readers, 
he  completes  the  correct,  indeed,  but  partial  representation  of  the 
future,  which  he  had  hitherto  given,  and  guards  against  the  abuse 
to  which  it  might  be  liable  by  the  carnally  minded.  Very  appo- 
sitely Calvin:  "  Videntur  hac  inter  se  pvgnare  ;  sed  oporluit  priore 
loco  Judccis  proponi  dei  heneficia,  id  alacrius  incumberent  ad  tem- 
plum  fudificandum,  et  scireut  nonfrustra  se  operam  consumere.  Mmc 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  II.  147 

eliam  adjungi  oportuit  diversam  admonitionem,  ne  hypocrilcc  fallaci 
illaritm  promissioyiemjiducia  obdurescerent,  quemadmodiim  fieri  sold. 
JDeinde  ut  Jideles  sibi  meluerent  in  tempore,  atque  ita  soUiciti  incede- 
rent  coram  deo  :  quia  nihil  magis  exiiiale  est,  quam  secinitas  ;  ubi 
enim  grassatur  peccandi   licenlia,    impendet   dei  judicnim." 

The  whole  portion  may  be  divided  into  three  parts,  V.  1-  3,  which 
serve  as  it  were  for  a  prelude  to  the  rest,  describe  the  desolation  of 
the  whole  land  by  foreign  foes.  The  relation  of  a  two  fold  symbolical 
action  of  the  prophet,  which  took  place  in  vision,  gives  a  deeper 
insight  into  the  causes  of  this  event.  In  the  first,  (v.  4  -  14,)  the 
prophet  supplies  the  place  of  the  great  angel  and  revealer  of  the 
Lord,  and  typifies  his  future  actions.  Israel  devoted  to  destruction 
by  the  divine  decree,  appears  as  a  flock  destined  to  the  slaughter. 
The  prophet  makes  an  attempt  to  rescue  them  ;  he  undertakes  the 
office  of  a  shepherd  over  the  poor  flock,  and  labors  to  deliver  them 
from  the  evil  shepherds,  who  would  lead  them  to  destruction.  But 
the  refractoriness  of  the  shepherds  and  the  flock  compels  him  to 
give  up  his  office,  and  abandon  the  flock  to  the  full  misery,  from 
which  they  had  hitherto  been  preserved  by  himself.  He  now  de- 
mands his  reward  ;  they  give  him  the  contemptible  one  of  thirty 
pieces  of  silver.  In  this  way  is  the  last  manifestation  of  the  Lord's 
mercy  towards  his  people  by  the  Messiah,  and  the  rejection  of  him 
typified.  The  prophet  then  represents,  at  the  command  of  the  Lord, 
in  a  second  symbolical  action,  the  wicked  shepherds,  who  will  con- 
sume and  destroy  the  flock,  after  the  rejection  of  the  good  shepherd. 

V.  1.  "  Open,  O  Lebanon,  thy  gates,  and  let  fire  devour  thy 
cedars."  The  representation  is  altogether  dramatic.  The  prophet 
instead  of  announcing  to  Lebanon  its  future  desolation,  commands 
it  to  open  its  gates.  Calvin  :  "  Induit  personam  fecialis,  qui  minatur 
atque  denuntiat,  jam  adesse  idtimam  dei  vindictam."  Gates  are 
attributed  to  Lebanon,  as  a  natural  bulwark.  Calvin  :  "  Cur  autem 
jubeat  Libanum  siias  aperire  portas,  in  promtu  est.  Paulo  post 
vocat  sylvam  munitam,  qua  tamcn  carebat  moenibus  et  portis."  The 
2  shows  the  material  on  which  the  fire  operates.  The  sense  there- 
fore is,  "  Thou,  O  Lebanon,  wilt  be  stormed  and  devastated  by  the 
enemy."  The  inquiry  now  arises,  whether  this  verse,  as  well  as  the 
following,  is  to  be  understood  literally  or  allegorically.  The  alle- 
gorical interpretation,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Jarchi,  Kimchi, 
and  Abenezra,  is  very  ancient  among  the  Jews.  From  a  passage 
of  the   Talmud,    (Joma,    390,)  it   appears,   that    by    Lebanon  was 


148  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

understood  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  We  here  cite  the  remark- 
able passage  :  "  Quadraginta  annis  ante  excidium  apertoi  sunt 
portcB  templi  sua  sponte.  Ohjurgavit  igitur  eas  R.  Jodianan  Jil. 
Zaccai  et  dixit :  O  tcmplum,  templum,  quarc  tu  tcrres  te  ipsum  7 
novi  ego,  quod  Jinis  tmis  erit,  ut  desoleris.  Nam  sic  prophetavit  de 
te  Zacharias,  jilius  Iddo :  Aperi,  Lihanc,  portas  tuas."  This  open- 
ing of  the  doors  of  the  temple  is  mentioned  by  Josephus  (De  Bell. 
Jud,  6,  5,)  and  it  is  not  improbable,  that  it  appeared  to  him  and 
his  contemporaries,  as  so  weighty  an  omen,  because  the  above  men- 
tioned interpretation  was  at  that  time  current.  The  antiquity  of  this 
interpretation  among  the  Jews,  is  proved  also  by  its  occurrence  in 
several  fathers,  particularly  Eusebins  and  Jerome,  wiio  probably  bor- 
rowed it  from  them.  The  latter  remarks  :  "  Apcrit  Libamis  portas 
snas,  ut  Romanus  intret  exercitus,  et  comedat  ignis  cedros  ejus,  ut 
vel  incendio  cuncta  vastentur,  vcl  hostili  impetu  duces  ac  principes 
consumantur."  Also  among  the  later  interpreters,  the  reference  to 
the  temple  was  retained  by  several,  as  e.  g.  Grotius.  Others,  on  the 
contrary,  understand  by  Lebanon  all  Jerusalem ;  still  others,  as 
Mark  and  Eichhorn,  all  Palestine:  "  Quam  ad  partem  scptentriona- 
Icm  mans  iste  claudebat,  et  qua;  vere  instar  Libani  erat  supra  alias 
terras  illustris  multis  viodis."  Some  more  recent  critics,  as  Gese- 
nius,  (on  Is.  37  :  24,)  and  Hitzig,  (Studien  and  Critiken,  Jahrg. 
1830,  p.  33,)  proceeding  on  the  false  hypothesis  of  the  composition 
of  the  second  part  before  the  exile,  take  Lebanon  as  an  image  of 
the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes.  The  objection  to  all  these  interpre- 
tations, which  entirely  exclude  the  literal  sense,  is,  that  along  with 
Lebanon,  other  parts  also  of  Palestine  are  mentioned,  and  indeed 
in  such  a  manner,  that  on  a  hostile  invasion  the  laying  waste  of 
Lebanon  must  of  course  extend  to  them.  This  was  observed  by  Eich- 
horn, (Hebr.  Propheten,  III.  p.  380,)  although,  omitting  the  proper 
use  of  this  observation,  he  takes  Lebanon  again  as  a  designation  of 
the  whole  land.  "  The  devastation  prevails  through  the  whole  land, 
beyond  the  Jordan  ;  it  seizes  upon  the  oak  forests  of  Basan,  and 
annihilates  the  pastures;  on  this  side  the  Jordan,  the  thicket  through 
which  the  Jordan  flows.  There  the  shepherds  mourn  on  account 
of  their  beautiful  pasture  grounds;  here  the  lions,  for  the  loss  of  their 
quiet  lairs.  Whoever  dwells  in  the  land  laments."  If  it  is  certain 
that  Lebanon  is  mentioned  as  the  northern  bulwark  of  the  land, 
which  being  stormed,  it  would  stand  open  to  the  invading  enemies, 
(Cocceius:  "  Liba7wx  munimenfum  terr^  Canaan  versus  septentri- 


ZECHARIAHChap.  11.  149 

onem  est,  unde  omne  malum  ivgruit  in  JudcBOs,")  and  the  oak 
forests  of  Basan  on  the  one  side,  and  the  shrubbery  of  the  Jor- 
dan on  the  other,  in  order  to  point  out  that  the  destroying  host 
of  enemies  spread  themselves  over  the  whole  land,  then  can  Leba- 
non neither  be  an  image  of  all  Jiulea,  nor  of  the  temple,  nor  of 
Jerusalem,  and  at  the  same  time,  the  absurd  opinion  of  Hitzig  falls 
to  the  ground,  that  the  description,  v.  1-3,  relates  to  internal  dis- 
sensions in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes.  On  the  other  hand, 
however,  we  must  still  not  so  adhere  to  the  literal  sense,  as  to  refer 
the  hostile  devastation,  merely  to  the  individual  objects  mentioned, 
V.  1-3;  nay,  it  does  not  even  imply  that  all  these  objects,  the  cedars 
and  cypresses  of  Lebanon,  the  oaks  of  Basan,  the  shrubbery  of 
Jordan,  should  be  actually  laid  waste  during  the  hostile  invasion. 
In  such  representations,  particular  instances  serve  merely  to  desig- 
nate the  whole  by  an  individual  example  ;  a  total  devastation  of  the 
land  by  an  invading  enemy  from  the  North  is  the  theme,  which  lies 
at  the  foundation  of  the  prophet's  description,  and,  in  carrying  this 
out,  he  particularly  mentions,  what  is  especially  distinguished  in  the 
land.  Lebanon,  with  its  proud  cedars,  must  here  receive  the  first 
place,  even  on  account  of  the  dependence  of  Zechariah  on  the  ear- 
lier prophets.  With  them,  Lebanon  is  a  constant  designation  of  all 
that  is  high,  invincible,  strong.  Isaiah,  2  :  13,  employs  it,  along  with 
the  oaks  of  Basan,  as  a  part  for  the  whole,  to  point  out  all  that  is 
high  and  strong  on  earth,  and  10  :  34,  as  an  image  of  the  Assyrian 
monarchy.  Chap.  40  :  16,  he  mentions  Lebanon,  to  designate,  by 
way  of  individualization,  the  highest  mountain  forest.  The  king  of 
Assyria,  Is.  37  :  24,  knows  no  higher  boast,  than  that  he  has  ascend- 
ed Lebanon,  and  cut  down  its  lofiy  cedars.  A  passage,  the  com- 
parison of  which  is  here  the  more  important,  because  in  it,  also,  the 
ascension  of  Lebanon  is  to  be  understood  at  the  same  time  literally, 
(Lebanon  would  certainly  not  be  mentioned,  if  the  king  of  Assyria 
had  not  actually  scaled  it,  as,  v.  25,  another  land  with  which  the  As- 
syrians never  had  any  concern  would  certainly  not  be  mentioned 
instead  of  Egypt,)  and  metaphorically,  as  an  individual  example  of 
the  conquest  of  every  difficulty,  and  of  victorious  perseverance. 
Similar  is  Is.  14 :  8,  where,  in  reference  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  it 
is  said  :  "  The  cypresses  also  rejoice  over  thee,  the  cedars  (?f  Leba- 
non ;  since  thou  hast  fallen,  no  man  comes  to  us  who  cuts  us  down." 
Jeremiah  employs  Lebanon,  together  with  mount  Gilead,  as  a  figu- 
rative designation  of  the  royal  house  of  Judah,  22  :  6;   "  Thus  saith 


150  ZECHARIAHCiTAP.il. 

the  Lord,  concerning  the  house  of  the  king  of  Judah  :  Gilead  art 
thou  to  me,  the  head  of  Lebanon  ;  surely  I  will  change  thee  into 
a  desert,  into  cities  which  are  not  inhabited."  V.  7.  "  And  I  sanc- 
tify against  thee,  destroyers  with  their  implements,  and  they  destroy 
the  choice  of  thy  cedars,  and  make  them  fall  together  upon  the  fire." 
This  passage,  which  the  prophet,  as  is  shown  by  the  comparison  of 
"  they  destroy  the  choice  of  thy  cedars,"  with  "  which  are  glorious 
are  laid  waste,"  in  v.  2,  appears  to  have  had  especially  in  view,  dif- 
fers from  the  one  before  us,  so  far  as  in  it  Lebanon  is  an  image  of 
an  exalted  individual.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  it  designates,  by  way 
of  individualization,  all  that  is  exalted  in  the  land  of  Judea,  in 
general  ;  a  distinction  which  is  rendered  clearer  by  the  remark,  that 
in  the  case  of  such  an  individualization,  the  object  named  is  also 
included,  while  in  the  case  of  an  image,  it  serves  only  as  a  designa- 
tion of  another.  By  confounding  the  two,  particularly  in  the  proph- 
ets, a  multitude  of  false  interpretations  has  been  occasioned  ;  comp. 
6.  g.  Gesenius  zu  Jes.  2,  13  ff.  and,  in  general,  a  large  number  of 
passages  of  his  commentary.  As  for  the  rest,  Calvin,  and  indeed  he 
only,  has  discerned  the  truth  in  the  passage  before  us.  He  rejects 
the  allegorical  interpretation  of  Jerome  and  others,  and  remarks : 
"  Consilium  pi-ophct(S,  dtum  fore  vindiccm  contra  totum  popuhim,  ut 
nee  Hierosolymoi,  nee  uUis  locis  parcat.  Ergo  ctiam  per  ahietes  et 
cetlros  intelUgit,  quidquid  tunc  excellebat  vel  in  JiidcBa,  vel  aliis  in 
locis.  —  Sub  una  specie  compleetitur  quidquid  prctiosum  erat  in 
Judtsa.  —  Dicit  propheta  nullum  esse  locum  tarn  diffieilem  accessu, 
qui  non  pervius  sit,  uhi  dominus  licentiam  omnia  perdendi  hostibus 
dare  volet.'"  It  is  true,  that  immediately  after  he  overlooks  the 
difference  between  metaphor  and  individualization,  when,  by  the 
shepherds,  he  understands  people  of  rank,  by  lions,  the  cruel  rulers 
of  the  people;   and  even  in  v.  2,  refers  Dnnx  to  persons. 

V.  2.  "  Howl  thou  cypress  ;  for  the  cedar  falls,  laid  ivaste  are  the 
lofty.  Howl  ye  oaks  of  Basan ;  for  the  strong  forest  is  overthroum." 
The  cedars  in  relation  to  the  cypresses,  and  the  mountain  forest  ot 
Lebanon  in  contrast  with  the  groves  of  Basan,  stand  here  as  an  indi- 
vidualization of  what  is  most  distinguished  and  exalted  in  relation 
to  what  is  indeed  less  so,  but  nevertheless  still  excellent  and  distin- 
guished above  the  rest.  Has  the  former  not  been  able  to  withstand 
the  conqueror,  the  latter  sees  its  destruction  to  be  the  more  certain  ; 
and  the  low  and  insignificant  is  so  inevitably  given  up  to  ruin,  that 
it  need  not  be  particularly  mentioned.     The  cypresses  (that  these 


ZECHARIAII  C.iAi>.  II.  151 

are  to  be  understood  by  E/n:?  has  been  proved,  among  others,  by 
Gesenius  in  the  Tlies.  s.  v.)  are  indeed  placed  below  the  cedars, 
but  occupy  the  second  place  after  them,  on  account  of  their  hard 
and  firm  wood,  suited  to  the  building  of  palaces  and  ships  ;  and, 
hence  elsewhere  alf^o,  as  Is,  14  :  8,  Ezek.  31  :  8,  they  are  joined 
with  them.  In  like  manner  the  oak  forests  of  Basan  were  in  great 
esteem,  as  the  oak  in  general  was  reckoned  among  the  noblest 
trees,  comp.  Is.  2 :  13,  Ezek.  27  :  6.  In  expression  and  contents 
such  passages  are  similar,  as  Is.  23 :  14,  "  Howl  ye  ships  of  Tar- 
shish ;  for  your  stronghold  is  destroyed."  Jer.  49  :  3,  "  Howl 
Heshbon,  for  Ai  is  destroyed."  It  is,  in  general,  a  custom  of  the 
prophets,  when  the  strong  has  fallen,  to  exhort  the  weaker  to  fear 
and  lamentation,  and  in  this  way  to  express  the  thought  that  there 
now  remains  no  deliverance  for  the  latter,  comp.  on  chap.  9:5.  — 
*i:^X  is  taken  by  several  in  the  sense  because,  and  it  cannot  indeed 
be  denied,  that  tvhat  sometimes  expresses  the  sense  of  because,  comp. 
Gesenius,  Thes.  s.  v.  Ewald,  p.  661.  But  still  there  is  here  no  rea- 
son for  the  assumption  of  this  peculiarity,  which  scarcely  occurs, 
except  in  historical  prose,  which  is  more  inaccurate,  and  approaches 
nearer  to  the  language  of  common  life.  On  the  contrary,  we  should 
then  expect  the  article  in  □"''^'''ix.  The  phrase,  "  which  are  magnifi- 
cent," expresses  either  the  ground,  why  in  general  the  cedars  are 
named,  and  the  cypresses  on  account  of  their  fall  exhorted  to  lam- 
entation ;  —  the  cedar  is  the  queen  of  the  forest ;  "  does  this  happen 
in  the  green  wood,  what  will  be  in  the  dry?  "  comp.  Ezek.  21  :  3, 
"  Behold  I  kindle  in  thee  a  fire,  and  it  consumes  in  thee  every 
green  tree  and  every  dry  tree."  —  Or  it  refers  to  a  difference  among 
the  cedars  themselves;  the  cedar  forest  on  Lebanon  consists  even 
now  of  two  kinds  of  trees,  the  high  and  majestic  ancient  trees,  in 
Jeremiah  1.  c,  called  "  the  choice  of  his  cedars,"  and  those  of  a  more 
recent  growth.  Comp.  Ritter.  Erdkunde,  II.  p.  445  sq.  Accord- 
ingly, the  words  contain  a  climax  ;  even  the  most  splendid  cedars 
have  fallen,  how  then  can  the  rest  of  the  forest  expect  to  be  spared  1 
The  latter  sense,  on  account  of  the  parallel  passage  of  Jeremiah,  is 
certainly  to  be  preferred.  The  defenders  of  the  allegorical  interpre- 
tation have  ever  found  in  these  words  a  direct  confirmation  of  their 
view.  The  Seventy  translate  :  on  (nyulMq  ^ayiaTuvfg  hai.wnoigr]- 
aav.  Jerome :  "  quoniam  magnifici  vastati  sunt,"  on  which  he 
remarks  :  "  Quodque  prius  dixit  obscure,  nunc  ponit  manifestius.  — 
Cupio  scire,  qucB  sint  cedri  Libani,  qua:  combustoi  sunt,  qua:  abides, 


152  ZECHARIAHChap.  11. 

quibus  ululatus  indidtur,  quae  pinus,  quce  corruit ;  magnijici,  inquit, 
vastati  sunt."  Theodoret:  Kal  eo/.i7}vtv(iir,  a  TgoTiixMg  elgr^xEv  inijya/sv 
X.  T.  I.  Cyril  '."Oil  8i  negi  av&(jwno)v  o  Xoyog  aiulalnaqov  IStlv'  tcpr]  yaq 
tv&vg,  OTi,  (.nydXcog  /jsyiOTccvsg  itaXainwgr^aav.  Among  the  moderns 
with  peculiar  confidence  Hitzig  1.  c.  p.  33.  But  there  is  not  the 
smallest  ground  for  this  supposition.  "T'lX  is  used  not  only  in  gen- 
eral of  lifeless  things,  comp.  e.  g.  Exod.  15 :  10,  Ps.  93 :  5,  but  it 
also  occurs  especially  as  an  epithet  of  the  cedar,  Ezek.  17 :  23,  cor- 
responding to  "the  high  and  the  exalted."  Is.  2  :  13.  T^;  stands  in 
a  poetic  discourse  to  express  the  prostration  of  the  forest  also  in  Is. 
32  :  19. —  Its  high  and  lofty  trees  come  down  as  it  were  from  the 
throne  to  the  dust. — In  the  last  words  the  marginal  reading  "i]^' 
T'YIin  is  probably  to  be  preferred,  as  the  more  difficult,  to  that  of  the 
text  lli'3n  "^pi.  It  appears,  that  the  prophet  in  these  words  designed 
a  double  sense,  and  therefore  chose  as  well  the  unusual  combina- 
tion, "the  forest  of  the  strong,"  for  "  the  strong  forest,"  as  also  the 
unusual  form,  which  does  not  elsewhere  occur,  "I'V^  for  '^•'1X3,  in  the 
sense  inaccessible,  strong.  "I'VID  "iJ^l  may  signify  both  the  forest  of 
extinction,  and  the  forest  to  be  destroyed.  I'V?  has  throughout  the 
sense  vintage.  The  vintage,  however,  is  a  frequent  image  of  extinc- 
tion and  destruction.  Thus,  Judges  8:2,  "  Is  not  the  gleaning  of 
Ephraim,  better  than  the  vintage  of  Abiezer.  Obad.  v.  5,  "  Had 
the  vintagers  passed  over  thee,  would  they  not  have  left  a  glean- 
ing?" Particularly  however,  Jer.  6:9,  "The  remnant  which  is 
left  of  Israel,  they  will  gather  as  a  vine  ;  cast  (O  friend)  as  a  vinta- 
ger one  after  another  into  the  vats,"  and  chap.  49  :  9,  "  If  vintagers 
(Dnv^)  had  passed  over  thee,  would  they  not  have  left  a  gleaning?  " 
The  prophet  accordingly  would  embrace  in  one  and  the  same  word 
the  present  and  future  condition  of  Lebanon.  Entirely  analogous  is 
Is.  13  :  22,  "  the  jackals  answer  each  other,"  vniJlpSx?-  That  the 
prophet  has  here,  without  any  particular  reason,  chosen  the  form 
which  elsewhere  never  occurs,  rrinpSx  for  vr\up"ji<,  his  palaces,  we 
certainly  cannot,  with  Gesenins  and  Winer,  assume.  He  rather 
thereby  points  out,  that  the  proud  palaces  of  luxury  should  at  a  future 
period  be  widowed.  Such  an  allusion  is  the  more  admissable  in 
Zechariah,  as  in  general  among  the  later  prophets  the  play  upon 
words  and  the  allusion  had  become  much  more  frequent.  Thus 
e.  g.  Jer.  19  :  2,  the  name  of  the  frag7nent-door  is  mentioned  plainly 
in  reference  to  the  impending  destruction,  as  appears  from  a  com- 
parison of  V.  11;  see  also  on  chap.  6:9-15. 


"'.^3^ 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  163 


V.  3.  "  The  sound  of  the  howl  of  the  shepherds  ;  for  laid  toaste 
is  their  ornament,  the  sound  of  the  roaring  of  the  lions;  for  laid 
waste  is  the  pride  of  the  Jordan.'"  The  prophet  describes  what 
he  perceives  in  inward  vision,  and  hence  the  absence  of  the  verb  is 
explained,  and  there  is  no  occasion  to  assume  an  ellipsis.  An  ex- 
actly parallel  passage  is  found  in  Jer.  25  :  34  sq.  There  can  indeed 
be  no  doubt,  that  Zechariah  had  it  in  view.  In  Jeremiah,  also,  the 
invasion  of  an  enemy  from  the  Nortli  is  described.  The  only  dif- 
ference is,  that  here  again,  that  which  is  metaphorical  with  Jere- 
miah, is  individualization  with  Zechariah.  Particularly  v.  36, 
agrees  almost  verbatim  with  the  first  half  of  the  verse  before  us: 
Di;!';^"??""*^'  nin:  nnk^-o  |N-:!fn  n;-jx  nSS^i  n'J^'"in  npJ^^  Sip,  "  The  voice 
of  the  cry  of  the  shepherds  and  of  the  howl  of  the  excellent  of  the 
flock  ;  for  the  Lord  lays  waste  their  pasturage."  With  the  second 
member  v.  38  coincides.  "  They  leave,  as  a  lion,  their  resting- 
place,  for  their  land  is  for  desolation."  Peculiar  to  Zechariah  only 
is  the  circumstance,  that  the  lions  especially  are  frightened  from  the 
pride  of  Jordan,  the  stately  shrubbery,  which  covers  its  banks,  so 
that  its  waters  cannot  be  obtained,  until  a  path  has  been  made 
through  it,  and  which  serves  as  an  abode  for  innumerable  wild  beasts, 
though  now  no  longer  for  the  lions,  (comp.  Burkhardt,  II.  p.  593, 
Ritter,  II.  324,  Rosenmuller,  Altcrth.  II.  1,  p.  196  flf.)  But  on  a 
nearer  examination,  it  appears  that  this  trait  also  is  taken  from  other 
passages  of  Jeremiah.  Not  only  do  we  find  the  designation,  the  pride 
of  Jordan,  of  which  Schnurrer  (on  Jer.  12,  in  Velthausen,  Kuinoel, 
and  Ruperti,  Comm.  Theol.  III.  p.  372,)  erroneously  asserts,  that  it 
was  gradually  introduced  into  the  language  of  the  people,  as  a  proper 
geographical  appellation,  since  it  never  occurs  as  such,  but  always 
with  respect  to  its  appellative  meaning  as  an  honorable  epithet,  in 
three  passages  of  Jeremiah,  and  in  him  alone ;  but  also  in  all  these 
three -passages  the  pride  of  Jordan  is  designated  especially  as  an 
abode  of  lions,  which  it  certainly  first  became,  when  the  land  by 
the  desolating  wars  towards  the  end  of  the  Jewish  state,  was  more 
and  more  depopulated,  (comp.  2  Kings  17.)  At  the  time  to  which 
the  second  part  of  Zechariah  has  been  recently  assigned,  it  had  not 
yet  become  so.  And,  besides,  this  idiom  is  so  far  from  being  pecu- 
liar, that  we  could  explain  the  recurrence  of  it  in  Zechariah  merely 
from  his  having  used  Jeremiah.  Jer.  49:  19,  it  is  said,  in  the  proph- 
ecy against  Edom  :  "  Behold,  as  a  lion  will  he  go  up  from  the  pride 
of  Jordan  to  the  fold  of  the  strong,"  ("  terram  Edom.,  qui  se  fortem 

VOL.  II.  20 


164  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

et  invictumjactaty  Schmid).  It  occurs  also  verbatim  50  :  45,  in  the 
prophecy  against  Babylon.  Chap.  12  :  5,  "  In  the  land  of  peace  dost 
thou  confide,  but  what  wilt  thou  do  in  the  pride  of  the  Jordan,"  a 
secure  region  is  contrasted  with  the  environs  of  the  Jordan,  dan- 
gerous on  account  of  lions.  When  we  consider  such  instances,  we 
cannot  sufficiently  wonder  at  the  blindness  of  those,  who  assign  the 
second  part  of  Zechariah  to  the  period  before  the  exile,  a  view 
which  gives  rise  to  such  monstra  interpretationis  as  the  before  men- 
tioned treatise  of  Hitzig.  —  The  ornament  of  the  shepherds,  according 
to  a  comparison  of  the  parallel  passages  of  Jeremiah,  are  the  excel- 
lent pastures,  not  indeed,  as  Rosenmiiller  supposes,  the  trees,  which 
afforded  them  shade.  What  the  prophet  here  expresses  by  way  of 
individualization,  the  thought,  that  each  one  loses  that  which  is  his 
pride,  his  joy,  the  desire  of  his  eyes,  the  love  of  his  soul,  Ezekiel, 
33  :  28,  embraces  in  the  general  proposition  ;  "  I  make  the  land  a 
waste,  its  mighty  pride  is  extinct,  the  mountains  of  Israel  are  made 
desolate,  so  that  no  man  passes  through."  The  howling  shepherds 
and  the  roaring  lions,  frightened  from  their  lairs,  are  the  representa- 
tives of  all  in  the  land,  who  have  any  good  to  be  lost. 

V.  4.  Flijgge  and  Rosenmuller  altogether  erroneously  assume, 
that  a  new  prophecy  commences  here.  V.  1  -  3,  are  rather  to  be 
regarded  only  as  a  sort  of  prelude ;  after  the  prophet  has  there  paint- 
ed the  judgment,  which  should  come  upon  the  covenant  people,  he 
here  exhibits  the  causes,  which  had  brought  it  upon  them.  Calvin  : 
"  Hie  subjiciiur  ratio,  cur  deus  tarn  severe  agere  cogitet  cum  populo 
sua,  nempe  quoniam  eorum  obslinutio  nihil  Venice  mcretiir.  —  Pra:- 
cipue  ingratitudinis  accusal  Judceos,  quod  tarn  male  et  andigne 
rcsponderunt  singularibus  dei  beneficiis."  V.  1  -  3  are  related  to 
the  rest  of  the  chapter  in  nearly  the  same  manner  as  Is.  52:  13-15 
to  chap.  53,  —  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  my  God:  Feed  the  flock  of 
slaughter."  The  question  here  arises  in  the  first  place,  who  is  the 
person  addressed,  who  it  is  that  receives  the  command  to  feed  the 
flock.  1.  Many  interpreters,  as  Frischmuth,  Mark,  Michaelis,  Sack 
(Apologetik,  p.  303),  and  others,  suppose  him  to  be,  without  any 
participation  of  the  prophet,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  united  with  God 
by  a  unity  of  being,  or  the  Messiah  ;  because  this  angel,  according 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  to  appear  in  him.  That 
the  assumption  is  unnatural,  that  a  person  should  be  introduced, 
as  acting  so  suddenly,  without  any  further  description,  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  refute  this  view.     The  unexpected  introduction  of  new  per- 


ZECHARIAH  Chap,  II.  156 

sons,  who  are  made  known  merely  by  their  discourse  and  actions, 
has  in  its  favor  numerous  analogies  in  the  prophetic  writings,  and 
is  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  dramatic  character  of  the  pro- 
phetic discourse.  But  the  sudden  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  is  here  the  less  liable  to  objection,  since  in  the  first  part  he  is 
uniformly  reckoned  among  the  acting  persons.  But  the  comparison 
of  V.  15  sq.,  is  of  itself  a  complete  refutation  of  this  view.  The  per- 
son, who  there  comes  forward  and  acts,  must  necessarily  be  identical 
with  the  subject  of  v.  4  sq.  This  is  shown  by,  "  Take  to  thee  again 
the  implements  of  the  foolish  shepherd."  The  ni;;  proves,  beyond 
dispute,  that  he,  who  here  takes  the  implements  of  the  evil  shepherd, 
is  identical  with  him,  who,  according  to  v.  7  sq.,  carries  the  imple- 
ments of  the  good  shepherd.  But  the  contents  of  v.  Jo  sq.,  as  the 
defenders  of  this  view  must  themselves  confess,  are  in  no  way  suited 
to  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  or  to  the  Messiah.  Consequently  also,  in 
V.  4  sq.,  he  alone  cannot  be  the  subject.  2.  Others  suppose,  that 
the  person  addressed  is  the  prophet,  not  as  the  representative  of 
another,  but  in  his  own  proper  person.  This  supposition  is  so 
absurd,  that  it  scarcely  needs  a  refutation.  It  is  contradicted  by 
V.  L5  sq.,  in  like  manner  as  the  foregoing.  If  the  prophet  there 
comes  forward  not  in  his  own  person,  but  as  a  representative  of  an- 
other, such  also  must  be  the  case  here.  To  this  we  may  add  the 
comparison  of  the  parallel  passages,  especially  Ezek.  chap.  37.  The 
evil  shepherds,  according  to  this  prophecy,  shall  be  deprived  of  their 
office.  The  Lord  himself  will  now  take  charge  of  his  flock,  search 
after  his  scattered  sheep,  bring  them  back  to  their  pastures  in  the 
land  of  Israel,  and  there  feed  them.  He  will  raise  up  for  them 
(v.  23)  one  sole  shepherd,  his  servant  David,  who  will  feed  them, 
and  be  their  shepherd.  Comp.  also  Jer.  23.  Is  it  now  conceivable, 
that  the  great  work,  which  is  there  attributed  to  the  Lord  and  the 
Messiah,  would  here  be  assigned  to  the  prophet  and  exercised  by 
him,  a  feeble  servant  of  the  Lord  in  the  new  and  poor  colony  ?  How 
could  he  possibly  be  the  chief  shepherd  of  the  whole  flock,  v.  7,  who 
deposes  all  other  shepherds,  or  leaders  of  the  people,  v.  8,  who  would 
afford  the  people  security  against  all  foreign  nations  and  preserve 
them  in  harmony,  and  at  whose  powerful  word  both  should  cease? 
What  sense  has  the  relation  concerning  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver, 
when  referred  to  the  prophet  ?  Rosenmiiller  has  endeavoured  to  ob- 
viate a  part  of  these  difficulties,  by  appealing  to  the  custom  of  the 
prophets,  to  attribute  that  to  themselves  as  an  action,  which  they  pre- 


166  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 


diet  as  future.  "  Feed  the  flock  destined  for  the  slaughter,"  he  ex- 
plains, after  the  Chaldee,  by  "  vaticinare  de  ovibus  mactationi  a  malis 
siiis  pastoribus  destinatis."  But  this  supposition  appears  on  a  nearer 
examination  altogether  untenable.  That  the  prophets  often  attribute 
to  themselves  as  an  action,  that  which  they  only  predict,  is  by  no 
means  owing  to  the  circumstance,  that  all  active  verbs  may  have  at 
the  same  time  a  declarative  meaning  (an  absurd  supposition),  but  to 
the  fact  that  the  consciousness  of  the  Spirit  working  in  them,  who  at 
the  same  time  gave  the  prophecy  and  accomplished  the  fulfilment,- 
suppressed  the  consciousness  of  their  own  personality  ;  that  they 
often  spoke,  not  as  individuals,  but  as  mere  organs  of  God.  Hence 
it  follows,  that  the  prophets  express  as  their  own  action,  not  that  in 
general  which  is  future,  but  only  what  the  Lord  will  accomplish  in 
the  future.  This  is  confirmed  by  a  view  of  all  the  passages  relating 
to  the  subject.  If  we  apply  this  usage  here,  it  is  impossible  that 
V.  4  can  have  the  sense  assumed  by  RosenmiJller  ;  it  must  rather  be 
explained,  "  Announce,  that  the  Lord  will  feed,"  and  in  like  manner 
also  must  all  the  following  active  verbs  employed  by  the  prophet  be 
understood.  This  however  is  obviously  inadmissible.  How,  e.  g.  can 
we  translate  v.  7  :  "  So  then  I  predicted  that  the  Lord  would  feed  the 
herd,  destined  for  slaughter,  that  he  would  take  two  staves,  the  one 
kindness  and  the  other  grace,  that  he  would  destroy  the  three  shep- 
herds in  one  month  "  ?  There  is  not  a  single  example  to  be  found  of 
such  a  mode  of  representation  continued  through  an  entire  and  long 
portion  ;  whenever  it  occurs,  it  is  interchanged  with  the  other,  more 
usual,  in  which  the  prophet  is  distinguished  from  God,  who  works 
in  him.  3.  There  remains,  therefore,  only  the  view,  that  with  v.  4 
the  relation  of  a  symbolical  action  commences,  in  which  the  prophet 
represents  another  person,  and  typifies  his  future  actions  and  fate. 
That  this  is  customary  in  the  symbolical  actions  of  the  prophets, 
every  one  of  them  proves.  Thus  e.  g.  Isaiah,  chap.  20,  typifies  the 
future  fate  of  the  Egyptians  and  Ethiopians.  So  Jeremiah,  chap.  20, 
and  Ezekiel,  chap.  4,  the  circumstances  of  the  covenant  people.  In 
the  symbolical  action,  which  is  related  in  the  first  three  chapters  of 
Hosea,  the  prophet  represents  the  Lord,  and  typifies  in  his  actions 
his  future  conduct  towards  the  covenant  people.  In  determining 
the  person  represented  by  the  prophet  in  the  present  instance,  the 
choice  lies  only  between  the  Lord  and  his  angel  or  his  revealer.  In 
favor  of  the  latter  we  cannot  argue,  that  the  Lord  is  several  times, 
as  V.  4  - 13,  distinguished  from  the  subject  of  discourse  ;  this  dis- 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  U.  157 

tinction  belongs,  as  the  comparison  of  Hosea  shows,  to  the  nature  of 
the  s}'rabolic  action  ;  it  refers  not  to  the  subject,  but  to  the  drapery  ; 
the  person  represented  commands  him,  who  makes  the  representa- 
tion, what  he  must  do  in  order  that  the  representation  may  corre- 
spond to  the  subject.  Just  as  little,  however,  can  we  appeal  in  favor 
of  the  first  lo  the  fact,  that,  v.  13,  Jehovah  calls  the  base  reward 
which  had  been  given  to  the  shepherd,  the  splendid  price  which  had 
been  paid  to  himself,  the  Lord.  As  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  united 
with  him  by  a  unity  of  being,  is  throughout  the  Scriptures  at  one 
time  distinguished  from  him,  as  the  person  sent,  from  him  who  sends, 
at  another  shares  in  his  name,  and  in  his  actions,  (comp.  Vol.  L 
p.  164,)  so  also  in  Zechariah.  The  most  remarkable  example  is 
chap.  2  :  12,  13,  "  Thus  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts  :  after  the  glory 
(rightly  Jonathan  :  "  Post  gloriam,  quoi  promissa  est,  id  adducntur 
super  vos  ")  he  has  sent  mo  to  the  heathen  who  rob  you  ;  for  he  that 
touches  you,  touches  the  apple  of  his  eye.  For  behold,  I  brandish 
my  hand  against  them,  and  they  become  for  a  prey  to  them  whom 
they  served.  And  he  shall  know  that  Jehovah  of  Hosts  hath  sent 
me."  The  person  speaking  here,  distinguishes  himself  from  Jeho- 
vah of  Hosts,  who  has  sent  him,  but  the  prophet  nevertheless  gives 
him  the  name  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  and  he  attributes  to  himself  a 
divine  work,  the  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  the  covenant  people. 
Comp.  above,  p.  24.  —  The  decision  depends  rather  on  the  result 
furnished  by  the  collective  contents  of  the  predictions  of  the  prophet 
respecting  the  relation  of  the  Lord  and  his  angel  to  the  covenant 
people.  But  here  it  is  soon  perceived,  that  all  relations  of  the  Lord 
to  his  people  are  conducted  through  the  mediation  of  his  revealer, 
endowed  with  the  entire  fulness  of  his  omnipotence,  that  all  blessings 
to  be  imparted  to  them  proceed  fro?n  him,  that  he  is  the  proper  pro- 
tecting and  covenant  God  of  the  Israelites.  It  is  he,  who,  chap.. 
1  :  8,  accompanied  by  a  host  of  angels,  is  present  in  the  valley  of 
myrtle-bushes,  the  symbol  of  the  covenant  people,  who,  chap.  2  :  14, 
promises  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them,  who,  chap.  3  :  1  sq.,  rebukes 
the  complaint  of  Satan  against  the  covenant  people,  in  the  person  of 
their  representative  Joshua,  and  out  of  his  own  full  power  imparts 
to  him  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  To  whom,  but  to  him,  the  constant 
shepherd  of  the  people,  could  the  last  and  greatest  attempt  described 
in  this  portion,  to  prove  his  pastoral  fidelity  towards  them,  be  at- 
tributed ?  This  result,  thus  independently  obtained,  is  still  con- 
firmed by  the  fact,  that  we  meet  again  with  the  reward  of  thirty 


158  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

pieces  of  silver  in  the  history  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  manifested  in 
the  Messiah,  and  that  he  is  designated  in  the  New  Testament  as 
the  subject  of  the  prophet's  representation.  —  Whether  the  sym- 
bolical action  here  described  tool?  place  inwardly  or  outwardly  we 
scarcely  need  to  inquire,  since  the  former,  as  Mainionides  has 
already  shown,  (Mor.  Neb.  2  :  46,  Buxt,  p.  324,)  is  so  very  obvious. 
The  guarding  of  the  flock  of  slaughter,  the  destruction  of  their  three 
shepherds,  the  imparting  of  the  reward  of  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  — 
all  this  cannot  have  taken  place  outwardly,  the  less  so,  since  the 
subject  matter  often  appears  behind  the  symbol,  as  e.  g.  v.  11,  where 
the  miserable  sheep  are  spoken  of,  who  adhered  to  the  great  high 
shepherd  ,  and  who  observed  that  it  was  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and 
V.  12,  where  the  prophet  treats  with  the  flock  itself  concerning  the 
reward ;  both  which  are  inexplicable,  if  the  prophet  fed  a  literal 
flock  of  sheep.  The  supposition,  moreover,  that  the  symbolic  action 
was  internal,  is  favored  by  the  analogy  of  the  visions  of  the  first  part, 
which  differ  from  it  only  in  this,  that  here  the  prophet  himself  comes 
forward  as  the  chief  actor  in  the  scene,  while  there  he  mostly  cooper- 
ates only  so  far,  (comp.  nevertheless,  chap.  3,  p.  32,)  as  the  dis- 
closures respecting  the  import  of  the  symbolic  representations  are 
imparted  to  him.  But  in  general  the  symbolic  actions  in  the  proph- 
ets, who  appeared  after  the  connexion  with  the  Chaldees,  viz.  Eze- 
kiel  and  Daniel,  are  almost  uniformly  internal,  which  was  owing  to 
a  participation  in  the  exceedingly  rich  Chaldee-Babylonish  imagina- 
tion. —  With  respect  to  the  import  of  the  symbolic  action,  those 
interpreters  are  at  once  to  be  rejected,  who  find  here  references  to 
events  before  the  exile.  These,  particularly  the  invention  of  several 
Jews  from  controversial  zeal  against  the  Christians,  (comp.  the  pas- 
sages in  Abicht,  in  the  valuable  treatise  De  Baculis  Jucunditatis  et 
Corrumpentium,  in  the  Thesanr.  Nov.  \.  p.  1094  sq.)  are  so  arbitrary 
and  absurd,  that  they  deserve  not  even  to  be  mentioned,  much  less 
refuted.  That  which  is  alleged  in  their  favor,  the  use  of  the  practers, 
loses  all  show  of  argument,  as  soon  as  it  has  been  proved  that  the 
prophet  here  describes  a  symbolic  action.  For  this  had  actually 
already  taken  place,  while  the  thing  typified  by  it  was  still  future. 
If,  however,  the  reference  to  the  time  of  the  second  temple  is  estab- 
lished, the  choice  can  lie  only  between  two  interpretations,  the  one 
which  finds  here  typified  the  whole  condition  of  God  towards  the 
covenant  people  under  the  second  temple;  the  other,  which  regards 
the  symbolic  representation  as  a  type  of  one  particular  eff"ort  under 


I 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  159 

the  second  temple  to  rescue  the  people,  who  were  near  destruction, 
viz.  the  pastoral  office  of  Christy  and  the  rejection,  of  the  people  as  the 
consequence  of  their  rejection  of  him.  The  former  view  was  adopt- 
ed by  Abarbanel,  whose  words  we  must  cite,  because  they  show, 
how  the  power  of  truth,  at  least  more  with  him  than  with  the  other 
Jewish  interpreters,  gained  the  victory  over  doctrinal  prejudice  and 
caused  him  to  apprehend  at  least  the  fundamental  thought  of  the 
prophecy.  He  says,  according  to  the  translation  of  Abicht  :  "  Sen- 
sus  prophetcB  is  est.  Postqiiam  deus  propJictcB  indicassct  bona,  qucB 
erant  futura  super  incolas  secundi  templi,  si  vias  suas  bonas  redde- 
rent,  secundum  prophdias  quas  jam  inte.rpy-ctalus  sum,  pergit  sermo 
ad prophetam,  ipsi  signijicando  futura,  si  non  bona  redderent  opera 
et  sc  bonis  illis  dignos  exhiberent,  sed  si  e  contrario  rcges  et  sacerdo- 
tes  eorum  una  cum  rcliquo  populo  detcrius  viverent,  quam  patres 
eorum,  quomodo  non  sufficiebut,  tit  opcribus  bonis  Schechinam  et  reve- 
lationem  non  reducerent,  sed  quoque  se  reos  redderent  dcsolationum 
et  captivitatis.  Et  hue  tendit  sapientum  p.  m.  in  principio  capitis  : 
Aperi,  Libanon,  portas  tuas."  (Comp.  on  v.  1.)  This  view  is  also 
taken  by  Calvin.  According  to  him,  the  Lord  executes  the  pastoral 
office  through  all  his  true  servants,  under  the  second  temple,  most 
completely  through  Christ.  "  Suscipit  propheta  in  se  personam 
omnium  pastortim ;  quasi  diceret  :  non  esse  cur  obtendat  populus 
inscitiam,  vel  culpam  suam  aliis  titulis  et  cohn-ibus  fucare  velit ;  quia 
dbus  semper  obtulit  se  pastorem,  et  adhibuit  etiam  ministros,  quorum 
manu  regeret  popidum  hunc.  Non  stetit  igitur  per  deum,  quin 
feliciter  haberi  potuerit  hie  populus."  A  copious  defence  of  this 
reference  is  given  by  Abicht,  (1.  c.  p.  1092  sq.)  His  chief  argument 
is  the  following  :  "  In  anteccdentibus  propheta  habitatoribus  templi 
secundi  dei  specialem  providentiam  et  defensionem  contra  insidtantes 
hostes,  terrce  fertilitatcm,  c.  10:  1,  defensionem  et  robur,  3-7,  mul- 
tiplicationem  et  collectionem,  8  sqq.,  promisit,  quts  omnia  ad  templi 
secundi  tempora  respiciunt.  Quoniani  vero  deus  prcevidit,  quod  in 
bono  non  perstituri,  sed  malis  operibus  contaminati,  posnam  merituri 
sint,  nunc  bonorum  promissioni  posnam  adjungit,  quos  eos  mansura 
sit,  si  a  legis  divinm  tramite  deflectercnt.  —  His  rationibus  subnixus 
dico,  nostra  verba  de  modo  JudcBos  in  iemplo  secundo  pasccndi  in 
genere  loqui,  quo  deus  modo  bonos,  modo  malos  concessit  pastores, 
prout  Judmorum  vita  et  opera  comparafa  fnerunt."  Sack  also  is 
inclined  to  refer  the  prophecy  to  the  execution  of  the  pastoral  office 
by  the  angel  of  the  Lord  during  the  whole  time  of  the  second  tern- 


160  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

pie,  but  still  with  a  predominant  reference  throughout  to  Christ.  — 
On  the  other  hand,  the  exclusive  reference  to  the  pastoral  office  to 
be  discharged  by  Christ  is  so  plain)}'  to  be  regarded  as  the  prevail- 
ing one,  that  it  would  be  useless  labor  to  mention  its  individual 
defenders.  If  now  we  examine  the  grounds  for  the  former  view,  it 
will  readily  appear,  that  that  advanced  by  Abicht  has  no  force.  For 
from  the  fact,  that  the  prophecy,  chap.  9  and  10,  concerning  the 
favors  to  be  conferred  upon  the  Jews  by  the  victories  of  Alexander, 
embraces  the  whole  time  of  the  second  temple,  until  the  coming  of 
Christ,  how  could  it  follow  that  the  prophecy  before  us  is  equally 
comprehensive,  that  it  does  not  rather  give  prominence  to  the  chief 
object  of  the  foregoing  prophecy,  the  appearing  of  Christ,  (not  only 
does  he  distinctly  appear,  chap.  9  :  9,  10,  but  elsewhere  also,  as  we 
have  seen,  there  are  representations  of  the  Messianic  time,)  and 
represent  it  in  another  point  of  view,  in  order  that  it  may  appear  in 
its  full  and  true  character,  and  not  exert  a  pernicious  instead  of  a 
wholesome  influence,  by  being  partially  and  carnally  apprehended? 
An  appeal  might  still  be  made  to  Jer.  23  :  4,  where  the  Lord  prom- 
ises, that  he  will  give  the  people  good  shepherds,  in  the  place  of 
their  present  bad  ones  ;  and  to  Ezek.  chap.  34,  where,  in  like  man- 
ner, the  assumption  of  the  pastoral  office  by  the  Lord,  refers  to  the 
whole  period  from  the  return  from  Babylon  till  the  appearing  of 
Christ.  But  in  these  prophecies  also,  which  Zechariah  plainly  had 
in  view,  the  sending  of  the  Messiah  is  made  particularly  prominent, 
as  the  highest  and  most  complete  manifestation  of  the  pastoral  fidel- 
ity of  the  Lord.  He  will  raise  up  for  them,  according  to  Ezek. 
V.  23,  one  sole  shepherd,  who  shall  feed  them,  his  servant  David  ; 
he  will  feed  them,  and  he  will  be  their  shepherd.  He,  the  Lord, 
will  be  their  God,  and  his  servant  David  will  be  a  prince  in  the 
midst  of  them.  According  to  Jer.  v.  5,  he  will  raise  up  to  David  a 
righteous  branch,  who  shall  be  a  king  and  reign  well,  and  establish  ' 
justice  and  righteousness  on  earth.  Wherefore  now  should  not 
Zechariah,  having  these  prophecies  in  view,  render  prominent  alone 
the  highest  and  last  manifestation  of  the  pastoral  fidelity  of  the 
Lord  ;  especially  as  its  inferior  manifestations,  promised  both  by 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  through  the  restoration  from  exile  and  the 
excellent  leaders  of  the  new  colony,  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  who 
are  extolled  by  Zechariah  in  the  first  part,  already  belonged  chiefly 
to  the  past  ?  This  view,  therefore,  has  no  plausible  ground  in  its 
favor,  on  the  contrary  it  is  liable  to  one  entirely  decisive  objection. 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  161 

According  to  this  interpretation,  the  pastoral  office  of  the  Lord,  and 
therefore  also  the  destruction  of  the  three  shepherds  in  v.  8,  must  be 
something  extending  through  the  centuries  from  the  return  from  the 
exile,  until  the  extinction  of  the  Theocracy.  On  the  contrary,  how- 
ever, it  is  said,  v.  8,  "  I  destroyed  the  three  shepherds  in  one  month." 
We  have  here  a  clear  explanation  of  the  prophet,  that  his  symbolic 
action  typifies  one  single  act  of  the  pastoral  fidelity  of  the  Lord,  to 
be  completed  in  a  comparatively  short  time.  In  addition  to  this, 
the  designation  of  the  covenant  people  as  a  flock  of  slaughter,  agrees 
well  with  the  condition  of  the  people  at  the  time  of  the  appearance 
of  Christ,  but  not  during  the  whole  second- temple,  and,  least  of  all,  at 
the  time  of  the  prophet.  The  latter  is  indeed  asserted  by  Calvin  : 
"  Grex  occisionis  refcrtur  ad  prophctcB  cetatcm ;  viortuce  oves,  quas 
dominus  eripuerat,  niultis  mohstiis  adhuc  expositm  crant."  But,  if 
we  compare  the  representation  of  v.  5,  it  soon  appears  that  the  con- 
dition of  the  people  here  represented  is  entirely  diiferent  from  that 
after  the  exile,  which  was  indeed  poor,  but  peaceful.  —  Finally  the 
breaking  also  of  the  staff,  Grace,  signifying  the  withdrawal  of  the 
protection  which  the  Lord  granted  his  people  against  the  heathen 
nations,  and  the  breaking  of  the  staff  of  the  covenanted,  signifying 
the  termination  of  harmony  among  the  people  themselves,  appear 
here  altogether  as  one  particular  action  of  lasting  consequences ; 
comp.  V.  11,  "  and  it  was  broken  in  that  day."  The  Lord  gives  up 
the  people,  not  as  in  their  former  history,  to  transient  punishment, 
in  order  to  receive  them  again  into  favor  when  they  shall  have 
turned  to  him,  but  the  peremptory  decree  of  rejection  is  pronounced 
against  them.  And  yet  we  should  expect  the  former,  if  the  represen- 
tation relates  to  the  whole  proceeding  of  the  Lord  with  the  covenant 
people  during  the  second  temple.  If,  however,  the  rejection  is  an 
individual  act,  so  also  must  the  conduct  of  the  people  by  which  it  is 
occasioned,  be  the  last  and  highest  manifestation  of  their  refractory 
spirit,  as  it  appeared  in  the  rejection  of  Christ.  As  such,  it  plainly 
appears  from  the  comparison  of  v.  4  and  fi  :  "  Feed  the  flock  of 
slaughter, — for  I  will  no  more  spare  the  dwellers  in  the  land,  saith 
the  Lord."  Here  the  feeding  is  designated  as  the  last  effort  for  the 
deliverance  of  the  unhappy  people,  to  be  immediately  followed  by 
their  total  rejection,  if,  as  actually  happened,  that  effort  should  fail. 
—  A  diversity  in  the  interpretation  of  rij'inri  |X}f  is  still  to  be  men- 
tioned. The  fiocli  of  slaughter  can  signify  a  flock  which  has  been 
already  slaughtered,  or  one  which  is  to  be  so  at  a  future  time.     The 

VOL.    II.  21 


162  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

Lord  can  thus  name  the  covenant  people  in  order  to  give,  as  the 
ground  of  his  pastoral  office,  his  sympathy  with  their  miserable  con- 
dition before  he  undertook  this  office,  or  his  sympathy  with  them  on 
account  of  the  judgments  still  to  be  iiiihcted  through  his  righteous- 
ness. It  is  best  however  to  combine  them  both.  The  present  mis- 
erable condition  of  the  people  under  evil  rulers,  both  domestic  and 
foreign,  was  an  effect  of  the  divine  justice.  This  should  and  must 
continue  for  the  future,  and"  be  increased,  if  the  people  did  not  sin- 
cerely repent ;  and,  in  order  to  furnish  them  with  the  means  for  this, 
the  Lord  himself  undertakes  the  office  of  a  shepherd,  and  comes  to 
deliver  that  which  is  lost. 

V-  5.  "  IV/iose  buyers  slay  them,  and  do  not  become  guilty,  and 
ivhosc  sellers  say.:  The  Lord  be  praised,  I  enrich  myself;  and  their 
shepherds  spare  them  not."  The  futures  of  the  verse  are  to  be  taken 
as  a  designation  of  an  action  already  indeed  commenced,  but  still 
in  progress.  The  use  of  them  of  itself  shows,  that  the  designation 
of  the  Israelites,  as  a  flock  of  slaughter,  cannot  be  referred  solely  to 
the  i>ast  and  present.  ^''^^%  ^^  is  translated  by  several  interpreters, 
"They  are  not  punished";  by  others,  "They  feel  themselves  not 
guilty"  (Calvin:  "  Nan  sunt  sibi  conscii  a-udelitatis")  ;  others  still 
unite  both,  as  Michaelis  :  "  Impune  hoc  faciunt,  ac  ne  culpam  qui- 
dem  ullam,  dum  oves  occidunt,  agnoscunt."  Mark :  "  They  are  not 
guilty  in  their  own  eyes,"  "  Vel  tandem  etiam  apud  judicem  huma- 
nvni  et  divinum,  quo  po^iiam  non  poscente  hoc  agant  impune."  In 
like  manner  also,  Praised  be  the  Lord,  I  enrich  myself,  is  taken  by 
all  interpreters  merely  as  a  designation  of  the  highest  cruelty,  and 
obduracy  on  the  part  of  the  sellers.  So  Grotius  :  "  Nihil  plebem 
euro,  dum  ego  ex  sacerdotio  magnos  qucestus  faciam.''^  Michaelis  : 
"  Adeo  non  agnoscunt  se  reos,  ut  sibi  in  cordc  benedicant,  et  deum  ip- 
sum  velut  auctorem  opum  injuste  partarum  laudent.''  But  this  interpre- 
tation is  decidedly  wrong.  =IDB'X';.  can  mean  neither,  "  They  do  not 
acknowledge  themselves  as  guilty,"  nor  "  They  are  not  punished." 
This  verb  D^^N  has  indeed,  as  all  verbs  which  signify  transgression, 
the  accessary  idea  of  the  punishment  of  sin,  but  the  main  idea  of 
guiltiness  is  never  lost.  It  is  still  more  evident  from  a  comparison 
of  the  parallel  passages,  that  this  interpretation  is  inadmissible. 
These  show,  that  the  prophet  would  express  the  thought,  that  the 
misery  of  the  people  does  not  proceed  from  human  caprice,  but  from 
the  righteous  judgment  of  God.  Jer.  2  :  3,  is  especially  to  the  point, 
"  Sacred  was  Israel  to  the  Lord,  the  first-fruits  of  his  increase.     All 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  163 

who  destroyed  it  were  guilty,  misfortune  came  upon  them,  saith  the 
Lord."  (Jonathan  :  "  JEt  sicut,  qui  edit  dc  primitiis  messis  manipuU 
oblationis,  antequam  inde  offer  ant  sacerdotes  fiUi  Aharonis  oblatianes 
super  altari,  reus  Jit,  sic  omnes  qui  deprcedahantur  domum  Israelis, 
reaturn  sibi  contraliebant")  The  prophet  here  contrasts  the  former 
time,  when  no  one  could  injure  the  theocratically  disposed  people, 
without  making  himself  guilty  and  liable  to  punishment,  with  the 
present,  whe»n  they  are  given  up  by  the  Lord  himself  to  their  ene- 
mies, as  his  instruments,  and  become  their  lawful  booty.  In  like 
manner,  chap.  -50 :  6,  7 ;  "  Perishing  sheep  are  my  people  ;  their 
shepherds  lead  them  astray  ;  they  cause  them  to  wander  about  on 
the  mountains,  they  go  from  mountain  to  hill,  forgetful  of  their  fold. 
All  who  find  them  consume  them,  and  their  enemies  say ;  We 
make  not  ourselves  guilty  (D^if^J  xS),  because  they  have  sinned 
against  the  Lord,  the  dwelling-place  of  righteousness,  against  the 
Lord,  the  hope  of  their  fathers."  Here,  as  the  cause  of  the  inno- 
cence of  the  enemies,  the  apostasy  of  the  people  from  their  God  is 
expressly  given,  which  brought  upon  them  the  tyranny  of  their 
enemies  as  a  righteous  divine  judgment.  The  passage,  chap. 
25  :  9,  although  probably  not  so  distinctly  regarded  by  the  prophet 
as  the  two  foregoing,  yet  deserves  to  be  cited  ;  "  Behold,  I  send  and 
take  all  the  nations  of  the  north,  saith  the  Lord,  and  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, the  king  of  Babylon,  viy  servant,  and  upon  this  land  and  upon 
all  these  people  round  about,  and  I  ptit  them  under  a  curse,  and 
make  them  desolate,"  &c.  Nebuchadnezzar  appears  here  as  the  min- 
ister of  the  divine  justice,  who,  if  this  destination  had  been  the  motive 
of  his  action,  could  have  executed  its  decisions  against  the  covenant 
people  without  guilt,  as  in  chap.  22 :  7,  ("  I  sanctify  against  thee  de- 
stroyers,") the  war  against  them  is  represented  as  sacred.  — "  Their 
sellers  say,"  is,  as  to  the  sense,  i.  q.,  "  they  can  say."  It  is  very 
frequent  to  attribute  that  to  any  one  as  a  saying,  which,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  he  could  say.  Still  the  comparison  of  Is.  36  :  10, 
where  Sennacherib  says  :  "  Have  I  invaded  this  land  in  order  to 
destroy  it,  without  the  Lord  ?  Yea,  the  Lord  said  to  me.  Invade  this 
land  and  destroy  it,"  shows,  that  the  enemies  of  the  Israelites  some- 
times actually  had  a  presentiment  of  their  higher  destination.  — 
That  is  a  lawful  gain,  in  respect  to  which  one  can  say.  Blessed  or 
praised  be  God,  for  the  imparting  of  which  a  man  can  thank  the 
Lord.  Appropriately  Calvin,  although  with  another  application  : 
"  Solemus  gratias  agere  deo,  ubi  qiuv  nobis  obvenivnt  bona,  possimus 
ei  acccptu  ferre.    Nan  dicct  latro,  qui  jugulavit  inaoxium  :  lienedic' 


164  ZECHARIAHChap.  11. 

tus  sit  deiis  ;  nam  vellet  exstinctum  esse  dei  nomen  potius,  quia  vul- 
nerat  ejus  conscientiam."  —  IH^ipj  as  the  antithesis  to  Jp'lPfSj  shows, 
(comp.  Is.  24  :  2,)  not,  as  several  interpret  it,  "  their  possessors,"  but 
their  sellers.     By  the  buyers  and  sellers  of  the  flock  are  designated 
here  those,  who  dealt  with  and  ruled  the  covenant  people  according 
to  their  pleasure.     We  can  by  no  means,  with  Theodoret,  Cyril, 
and  others,  refer  this  to  the  evil  leaders  of  the  people  from  among 
themselves,  but  rather  to   their  foreign  oppressors,  as    Jerome   has 
rightly  understood,  by  the  buyers  and  sellers,  the  Romans.     This 
plainly  appears  from  the  cited  parallel  passages,  still  more,  however, 
from  the  thing  itself;  how  could  the  flock,  Israel,  be  a  lawful  gain 
to   their    domestic    shepherds  ?    for    these  were  themselves   a  chief 
cause  of  their  apostasy,  and  were  therefore  chiefly  subject  to  the 
punishment,   comp.   v.   17,   Jer.  23  :   1.     Jahn  deserves  not  to   be 
refuted,  when,  from  the  form  Praised  be  the  Lord,  he  concludes  : 
"  Hebrceos  esse  hos  venditores,  uti  in  bello   cum   Rotnanis  erant." 
On  the  contrary,  by  "  the  shepherds  who  spare  not  the  flock,"  it  is 
highly  probable,  that  the  domestic  leaders  of  the  people,  and  indeed 
these  exclusively,  are  to  be  understood,  as  appears  from  the  compari- 
son of  v.  8,  as  well  as  of  v.  15-  17.     The  former  passage  at  the 
same  time  decisively  proves,  that,  by  the  shepherds,  not  merely  the 
civil  leaders,   as  Abarbanel  and  Grotius  suppose,  are  to  be  under- 
stood, but  likewise  the  ecclesiastical,  and,  in  general,  those  who  had 
in  any  way  been  called  by  the  Lord  to  the  guidance  of  the  people. 
There  is  therefore  a  climax  ;  the  people  sigh,  and  will  sigh,  not  only 
under  the  oppression  of  foreign  tyrants,  but  even  their  own  leaders 
deal    unsparingly    with    them.     The    apparently    feeble    expression, 
"  they  spare   not,"   when  used  of  the  native  shepherds,  is  stronger 
than  any  other  merely  positive  designation  of  their  conduct,  because 
it  expresses  how  nature  and  duty  required  them  to  spare  their  own 
flock,  and,  therefore,  how  it  was  a  severe  divine  judgment  when  they 
denied  them  both.  —  Something  must  still  be  remarked  respecting  an 
apparent  grammatical  anomaly.    The  plural,  the  sellers  and  the  shep- 
herds, is  joined  with  the  singular  of  the  verb.     This  cannot  possi- 
bly be  accidental,  as  even  Ewald,  p.  644,  seems  to  suppose.  Even  the 
remaining  examples  cited  by  him,  which  he  regards  as  pure  errors, 
might  be  referred  to  one  cause,  and  here  the  twofold  repetition  is 
the  more  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  mere  mistake  or  inaccuracy. 
The   prophet  would  point  out,   that,  notwithstanding  the  apparent 
plurality  of  the  actors,  there  is  yet  properly  but  one  principal,  that  it 


^. 


ZHCHARIAH  Chatv  II.  165 

is  the  Lord  who  works  by  tlie  sellers  and  the  shepherds.  That  the 
buyers  and  the  sellers  are  represented  as  instruments  of  the  Lord, 
we  have  already  seen  ;  in  respect  to  the  shepherds,  the  expression, 
"  for  I  will  not  spare,"  at  the  beginning  of  v.  6,  is  particularly  to 
be  observed,  whereby  the  Lord  plainly  indicates  himself,  as  the 
reason  of  the  shepherds  not  sparing  the  flock.  To  this  must  still  be 
added,  v.  16,  "  for,  behold,  I  raise  up  a  shepherd  in  the  land."  In 
a  later  prophet,  like  Zechariah,  such  a  phenomenon  is  the  less  sur- 
prising. 

V.  G.  "  /  ivill  no  longer  spare  the,  inhabitants  of  the  land,  saith 
the  Lord,  and  I  loill  give  one  into  the  poiver  of  the  other,  and  into 
the  power  of  his  king ;  and  they  lay  waste  the  land,  and  I  will  not 
deliver  out  of  their  hand."  The  '3  at  the  beginning  can  be  referred 
to  V.  5,  The  futures  of  this  verse  would  then  be  taken  in  the  sense 
of  the  future,  and  by  the  flock  of  slaughter  must  accordingly  be  un- 
derstood, one  which  should  be  slaughtered,  not  one  which  had 
already  begun  to  be  slauglitered.  For  in  this  verse  the  reason  would 
then  be  given,  why  the  people,  in  case  they  rejected  the  last  effort 
for  their  deliverance,  should  be  given  over  to  destruction  without 
their  destroyers  involving  themselves  in  guilt.  The  Lord,  having 
long  waited  for  the  fruit  of  the  barren  tree,  must  finally  cut  it  down. 
But  as  the  flock,  v.  7,  is  described  as  one  already  miserable  at  the 
time  when  the  Lord  entered  upon  his  pastoral  office,  it  is  unreason- 
able to  limit  v.  4,  5,  to  the  future.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  refer 
the  '2  to  the  expression,  Feed  the  flock  of  slaughter.  "  Make  the  last 
effort  to  conduct  them  to  prosperity  ;  for  I  cannot  and  must  not 
longer  suffer  their  shocking  apostasy  to  go  unpunished."  I'li^l  the 
land,  that,  which  had  been  the  subject  of  discourse  in  the  preceding 
context,  the  land  of  Israel.  Jerome:  "  De  hac  enim  terra  loqui- 
tur, de  qua  ei  sermo  erat,  et  non  de  orbe  terrarum,  sicut  Judwi  male 
interpretantes  a  se  volunt  in  aliam  partem  depravare  dei  senten- 
tiam."  The  explanation  of  this  verse  also  depends  upon  the  com- 
parison of  a  parallel  passage  of  Jer.  19  :  9,  made  use  of  by  the 
prophet ;  "  And  I  make  them  eat  the  flesh  of  their  sons,  and  the 
flesh  of  their  daughters,  and  they  shall  eat  one  the  flesh  of  the  other, 
(iSjn''  ',n;;n— ib|3  K^'^!!,)  in  the  anguish  and  distress  wherewith  their 
enemies  shall  oppress  them,  and  those  who  endeavour  to  take  their 
life."  A  twofold  reason  of  the  destruction,  a  twofold  punishment 
sent  by  the  Lord,  is  here  given,  the  discord  of  the  people  among 
themselves,  heightened  by  the  distress  and  the  oppressions  of  the 


4' 


166  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

enemy.  It  is  entirely  the  same  here  also;  the  former  is  indicated 
by,  "  I  give  them  one  to  the  other,"  the  second  by,  "  I  give  them 
a  prey  to  their  king."  For  that  we  are  not  to  understand  by  the 
king  a  domestic  ruler,  but  rather  a  foreign  oppressor,  appears  from 
the  fact,  that  neither  had  the  covenant  people,  at  the  time  of  the 
prophet,  a  domestic  king,  nor  has  he  made  mention  of  any  such,  the 
Messiah  excepted,  in  his  description  of  the  future.  Internal  discord 
and  external  enemies  are  combined  as  the  two  chief  instruments  of 
punishment,  which  God  employs  for  the  discipline  of  his  people,  not 
only  in  the  cited  passages  of  Jeremiah  and  Is.  9  :  7  sq.,  comp. 
especially  v.  18,  19,  and  3  :  4,  but  also  by  Zechariah  himself,  chap. 
8  :  10,  "  Before  these  days,  —  there  was  no  peace  before  the  ene- 
mies, and  I  sent  all  men  one  against  the  other,"  (inj/"}3  li^'X.)  This 
miserable  condition  of  the  people,  at  the  time  of  the  carrying  away 
into  exile,  is  then  designated  here  as  returning  in  greater  measure 
on  account  of  their  guilty  ingratitude  for  renewed  mercies  and  their 
apostasy.  If  we  look  to  the  fulfilment,  it  easily  appears  that  the 
Roman  Caesar  is  here  designated  by  the  king;  comp.  John  19  :  15, 
where  the  Jews  say,  "  We  have  no  king  but  Caesar."  How  accu- 
rately this  prophecy  agrees  with  the  fate  of  the  Jews  after  the  rejec- 
tion of  Christ,  the  frightful  rage  of  the  parties  against  one  another, 
until  at  last  the  city  was  taken  by  the  Romans,  need  not  be  pointed 
out,  and  is  confirmed  by  the  well  known  passages  from  Josephus, 
which  Jahn  has  supplied  with  a  liberal  hand.  —  The  verb  NVn  in 
Hiph.,  "  to  cause  any  one  to  be  found  or  find  himself"  ;  then,  "  to  de- 
liver any  one  into  the  hand,"  for  "  to  deliver  up."  As  the  subject 
of  mi^p,  properly  contiindunt ,  we  can  supply  the  nearest  relation  and 
the  king.  So  Michaelis  :  "  Misere  affiigent  ct  vastabunt,  turn  internis 
collisionihus ,  turn  extranea  hostilitate."  It  is,  however,  more  suit- 
able to  regard  the  king  alone  as  the  subject.  For  it  appears  that 
the  words,  and  they  lay  waste  the  land,  only  form  a  compendium  of 
the  description  of  the  hostile  invasion  in  v.  1-3.  The  verb  nriD 
agrees  better  with  a  hostile  invasion  than  an  internal  discord. 

V.  7.  "  So  fed  I  then  the  fiock  of  slaughter,  out  of  sympathy 
ioith  their  misery  ;  and  I  made  me  two  staves,  the  one  I  named  Grace, 
the  other  I  named  the  Allied,  and  I  fed.  the  flock."  Of  the  words 
|X2fr]l  \^3J^  pS,  we  give  first  the  explanation  which  appears  to  us  as 
without  doubt  the  true  one,  and  then  we  examine  those  which  deviate 
from  it.  We  translate  :  therefore,  the  most  jniserable  of  the  sheep. 
These  words  give  as  the  ground  of  the  pastoral  office,  undertaken  by 


2:ECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  167 

the  Lord,  his  sympathy  with  the  misery  of  the  flock,  entirely  coin- 
ciding with  V.  4  and  6,  "  Feed  the  flocli  of  slaughter ;  for  I  will  not 
further  spare,"  &lc.  pS  we  lake  in  its  usual  meaning  therefore. 
We  find  no  grammatical  ellipsis,  but  only  a  concise  form  of  expres- 
sion, which  occurs  as  a  result  of  passion  in  every  kind  of  discourse, 
and  with  especial  frequency  in  the  prophets.  It  is  peculiar  to  pas- 
sion to  speak  in  abrupt  and  broken  sentences,  barely  sufficient  to 
call  forth  the  same  feeling  or  thought  in  the  soul  of  the  hearer  or 
reader.  The  sentence,  when  completed,  would  read  :  "  I  did  this 
because  they  were  the  most  miserable  sheep."  We  cite  only  a  few 
examples  of  a  siniilar  concise  method  of  expressing  passion.  Zech- 
ariah  himself  furnishes  us  with  three  in  chap.  4  :  G,  7.  The  most 
striking  is  v.  7,  "  Zerubbabel  brings  forth  the  foundation  stone  ; 
acclamations;  grace,  grace  to  it."  Acclamations  mxtyn  stands  here 
without  any  necessity  of  supposing  a  grammatical  ellipsis,  instead  of 
a  whole  sentence  ;  "  acclamations  are  thereupon  heard  or  uttered." 
We  have  a  similar  example  in  the  same  verse  :  "  Who  art  thou,  O 
mountain,  thou  great  before  Zerubbabel?  To  a  plain,"  for  "Thou  shalt 
become  a  plain  ; "  and  v.  6  ,  "  Not  by  power  and  not  by  strength,  but 
by  my  Spirit,"  viz.  are  the  affairs  of  the  Theocracy,  in  general,  and 
especially  the  building  of  the  temple,  accomplished.  We  refer  also 
to  Is.  44  :  12,  where,  in  the  representation  of  idolatry,  which  is  in 
the  highest  degree  passionate  and  concise,  it  is  said,  "  the  smith  the 
a.Ke,"  (ni'yo  S.n3  l^'^n,)  as  to  the  sense  certainly  i.  q.  "  the  smith 
prepares  the  axe,"  though  the  assumption  of  a  pure  grammatical 
ellipsis  of  the  verb,  here  and  elsewhere,  could  by  no  means  be  jus- 
tified. The  mere  mention  of  the  subject  and  object  is  sufficient  to 
awaken  in  the  reader  the  conception  analogous  to  that  of  the  author. 
As  there  indignation  at  the  folly  of  idolatry  is  the  passion  which  the 
concise  expression  excites,  —  comp.  the  almost  still  more  remarkable 
example  66  :  18,  "  I,  your  works,"  —  so  here  it  is  the  tenderest  love 
of  the  Lord  towards  his  people,  and  grief  over  their  misery.  That 
grief,  in  particular,  loves  abruptness,  is  well  known.  —  Among  the 
interpretations  which  differ  from  ours,  the  first  class  consists  of  those 
which  take  pS  as  a  particle,  but  in  an  unusual  sense.  Among 
these,  those  come  nearest  the  truth,  who,  as  Abenezra,  ("  \2\  idem, 
quod  'l'i3;?D  ")  ;  Tarnov,  (J'  propterca,  quod  esserit  miseri  gregis,") 
and  Noldius  {Cone.  Part.  p.  507),  give  to  |.?S  the  meaning  because. 
They  have  hit  the  sense,  but  have  misunderstood  the  grammar. 
Those  wander  further,  who,  with  Castalio,  De  Dieu,  Drusius,  Storr, 


**-.^ 


168  ZECHARlAHCnAP.il. 

Rosen nniller,  understand  pS  as  a  particle  of  asseveration.  All 
these  and  other  explanations  are  set  aside  by  the  simple  remark,  that 
jpS  never  means  any  thing  else  tha.ii,' for  this  reason,  therefore. 
Even  the  meaning  verumtamen,  attamen,  assumed  by  Winer,  rests 
only  on  a  superficial  view  of  the  passages  cited  by  him.  Hos.  2:  16, 
Jer.  16:  14,  30:  16,  Ezek.  39:  25,  "  in  quibus  omnibus,"  as  he 
says,  "  subito  transitur  a  comminationihus  ad  paenas."  In  Jer.  16, 
the  promise  in  itself  considered  is  out  of  place,  as  the  threatening 
is  immediately  afterwards  continued.  The  true  interpretation  is 
already  given  by  Seb.  Schmid,  perhaps  the  best  commentator  on 
Jeremiah,  either  ancient  or  modern  :  "  Est  quidem  promissio  libcra- 
tionis,  sed  ita  id  prima  hoc  faciat  ad  exaggcrandam  diutitrnitatem, 
ct  gravitatcm  captivitatis,  ex  qua  si  emerserint  suo  tempore  JudcBi, 
putabunt  se  ex  majori  malo  emersissc,  quam  poifrcs  in  yEgypto." 
Chap.  30 :  16,  no  threatening  has  preceded,  but  only  a  justification 
of  the  divine  judgment,  which  had  already  been  executed.  This 
had  been  inflicted  by  God  with  a  paternal  disposition,  as  Israel 
would  learn  from  the  result  itself.  In  Ezekiel  the  heathen  shall 
know  that  the  Lord  has  given  Israel  into  their  power;  for  this  rea- 
son will  he  now  deliver  them.  In  Hosea  the  demonstration  of  love 
has  the  same  object  as  the  punishment  before  predicted.  —  A  second 
class  consists  of  those  who  take  p^,  not  as  a  particle,  but  as  a  pro??. 
gen.  fcem.,  after  the  Masoriies,  who  designate  it  as  n::pj  pivS,  and 
Jarchi.  SoMichaelis:  "  Propter  vos,  o  miser i  gregis.  —  Nisi  sci- 
vissem  me  in  popiilo  Judaico  habere  obsequiosas  aliquot,  licet  pau- 
ciores,  et  a  potiori  turba  contemtas  oves,  qucB  vocem  pastoris  audi- 
turce  esseiit,  nee  me  pater  misstiriis,  nee  ego  pasturus."  Among  the 
recent  interpreters,  Sack.  jpS  accordingly  is  to  be  translated,  "  for 
3'ou,  or  for  your  good."  A  strong  objection  to  this  interpretation  is 
derived  from  v.  11.  The  J«xn  ^'j^  there  standing  immediately 
before  \:?.,  shows,  that  pS  here  also  is  to  be  considered  as  compound- 
ed of  S  and  p.  Moreover,  the  form  pS  as  pron.  foim.  never  occurs, 
though  this  may  be accidental ;  according  to  analogy,  it  must  be 
pointed,  not  with  Zerc,  but  with  Scgol,  from  which  there  are  only  a 
few  exceptions,  asDHD  and  ona  in  some  passages;  and  on  account  of 
the  following  '.IJ;^,  instead  of  the  pio7i.  fcem.,  we  should  expect  the 
mascuL,  though  it  may  be  replied  that  the  first  relates  to  the  sheep, 
the  second  to  those  represented  by  them.  Were  there  no  other  inter- 
pretation within  our  reach,  and  only  one  of  the  three  last  objections 
could  be  applied,  it  would  signify  but  little  ;  when  combined,  how- 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  169 

ever,  they  have  force,  and  the  answers  to  them  are  insufficient. 
Finally,  in  this  interpretation  it  is  assumed,  though  not  indeed  ab- 
solutely necessary,  that  "  the  most  miserable  sheep,"  are  different 
frorn  "  the  flock  of  slaughter,"  which,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  is  erro- 
neous. —  Still  other  interpretations,  as  those  of  Cocceius  and  Mark, 
and  changes  of  the  text,  as  those  of  Jahn,  we  may  well  pass  over  on 
account  of  their  manifest  incorrectness.  —  The  miserahle  of  the 
sheep,  according  to  the  Hebrew  usage,  in  which  the  superlative  is 
expressed  by  a  comparison  of  the  whole  with  a  part  by  means  of  a 
stat.  constr.,  comp.  Ewald,  p.  576,  are  the  most  miserable  sheep. 
But  the  question  now  arises,  what  is  the  whole,  the  flock  of  sheep, 
with  which  the  part  is  here  compared.  If  we  assume  as  such  a 
definite  flock  of  sheep,  the  people  of  Israel,  then,  by  the  miserahle, 
one  particular  portion,  peculiarly  miserable,  is  designated ;  if,  on 
the  contrary,  we  take  as  suoh  the  sheep  in  general,  as  an  image  of 
all  men  and  nations,  then  the  most  miserable  sheep  would  signify  the 
whole  of  the  covenant  people.  The  former  interpretation  is  the 
nacre  usual ;  it  supposes,  that  there  is  here  a  contrast,  similar  to 
Ezek.  34  :  16,  "  I  will  seek  that  which  is  lost,  bring  back  that 
which  has  wandered,  bind  up  that  which  is  wounded,  and  strengthen 
that  which  is  sick  ;  but  that  which  is  fat  and  strong  will  I  destroy." 
It  is  subjoined,  that  the  most  miserable  here  are  those  also,  who, 
humbled  by  adversity,  long  for  deliverance.  But  a  closer  examina- 
tion shows,  that  the  latter  interpretation  is  the  true  one.  It  is  not  lia' 
ble  to  the  objection,  that  still,  v.  11,  by  "  the  most  miserable  sheep,'' 
only  a  part  of  the  people,  those  who  feared  God,  are  designated.  For 
this  more  particular  description  does  not  there  lie  in  "  the  most  mis- 
erable sheep"  itself,  but  in  "  which  adhere  to  me,"  and  this  very 
addition  shows,  rather  that  "  the  most  miserable  sheep,"  in  itself 
considered,  was  general,  and  belonged  to  no  particular  class,  but  to 
the  whole  people.  What  however  is  especially  decisive  for  the  latter, 
are  the  two  parallel  passages  of  Jeremiah,  chap.  49  :  20  ;  "  Of  a  truth, 
they  (the  Idumeans)  will  worry  the  smallest  sheep,"  |X2^n  "TVy,- 
Entirely  the  same  is  chap.  50 :  45,  in  reference  to  the  Chaldeans. 
In  both  passages  "  the  smallest  sheep  "  is  the  designation  of  the 
Israelites  in  opposition  to  all  the  neighbouring  nations.  To  this 
must  be  added,  that  the  Lord,  according  to  v.  6  and  9,  undertakes 
the  pastoral  office,  not  over  a  part  of  the  people,  but  over  the  whole, 
and  for  their  good.  Finally,  this  interpretation  alone  is  recon- 
cilable with  the  words  themselves.  These  cannot  be  explained  with 
VOL.   u.  22 


170  ZECHARFAH  Chap.   Jl. 

Calvin  :  "  Quoniam  erant  misellcB  qumdam  oves."  The  ellipsis  must 
rather  be  thus  supplied,  "  therefore  because  they  were  the  most  mis- 
erable sheep";  so  that  "the  most  miserable  sheep  "  are  identified 
with  "  the  flock  of  slaughter,"  which  signifies  the  whole  people. — 
The  taking  of  two  shepherd's  staves,  according  to  numerous  inter- 
preters, signifies  God's  different  modes  of  proceeding  with  the  people. 
Thus  e.  g.  Michaelis  :  "  Duos  sc  adhibuisse  dicit,  ut  oves  innuat  non 
una  modo  a  se  pastas  fuisse."  But  this  assumption  rests  on  an  erro- 
neous interpretation  of  the  names  of  the  staves.  The  shepherd's 
staff  is  the  instrument  with  which  he  affords  protection  and  safety  to 
his  flock,  Ps.  23  :  4.  "  Thy  rod  and  thy  staff,  they  comfort  me." 
The  taking  of  two  staves,  accordingly,  signifies  the  turning  away 
of  a  twofold  danger  by  the  faithful  shepherd,  from  outward  ene- 
mies, and  from  internal  discord,  precisely  the  same  by  which  the 
people,  according  to  v.  6,  in  case  of  their  stiff-necked  obduracy, 
should  be  destroyed.  Now,  so  long  as  the  last  effort  to  lead  them 
to  repentance  endures,  the  danger  is  still  warded  off  by  the  faithful 
shepherd.  Afterwards  it  breaks  in  upon  them  with  fearful  power. 
—  Most  interpreters  take  D;>j  in  the  sense  loveliness  or  beauty,  (Sev- 
enty, KuUog.  Aquila  and  Symm.  sinQinsia.  Jerome,  decus.)  But, 
according  to  this  interpretation,  the  appellation  would  have  but  little 
significance  ;  the  staiT  signifies,  even  according  to  v.  10,  the  mercy 
of  the  Lord,  whereby  he  secures  the  people  against  destruction 
from  outward  enemies.  Moreover  Dj^b,  however  frequently  this  may 
have  been  asserted,  never  has  the  meaning  loveliness,  but  rather 
always  that  of  kindness,  favor,  which  has  been  proved  to  belong 
to  it  in  this  passage  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  (Supplem.  p.  1630),  with 
the  remark,  that  the  meaning  loveliness  can  have  no  relation  to 
the  following  D^'l^n,  however  the  latter  may  be  interpreted.  Ps. 
90:  17,  ("  May  np  of  the  Lord  our  God  be  upon  us,")  the  sense 
favor  needs  no  farther  proof.  Prov,  15:  26,  "  An  abomination  to 
the  Lord  are  the  thoughts  of  the  wicked,  and  pure  are  Up'i  ^'?.'Qii," 
is  plainly  to  be  translated  words  of  kindness,  as  clearly  appears  from 
the  antithesis  with  the  thoughts  of  the  wicked,  his  plots  for  the 
destruction  of  others.  Equally  obvious  is  the  meaning  fanor,  chap. 
3  :  17,  16  :  24.  Ps.  27  :  4,  is  to  be  translated,  "  to  behold  the  favor 
of  the  Lord  (iTin:  d;'j),"  i.  q.  to  enjoy  his  favor.  —  The  second  name 
D"''??n,  according  to  an  interpretation  widely  diffused,  is  taken  in  a 
bad  sense,  either  in  the  sense  perdenfes,  or  dolentcs,  therefore,  as  an 
antithesis  to  the  stafT  kindness,  the  staff  woe,  with  which  the  people 


ZEOHARfAH  Chap.  11  171 

should  be  punished  in  case  they  should  reject  the  pastoral  office  of 
the  Lord.  Thus,  among  the  moderns,  Theiner  (kindness  and  tor- 
ment), and  Sack,  (1.  c.  p.  301,)  who  remarks,  an  antithesis  of  mild- 
ness and  severity  is  almost  necessarily  required  by  the  connexion. 
It  is  seldom,  however,  that  we  find  an  interpretation  so  widely  spread, 
which  can  be  shown  by  such  decisive  arguments  to  be  erroneous. 
1.  The  vei'b  Snn  has  neither  in  Kal  nor  in  Niphal  the  sense  to  cor- 
rupt or  to  become  corrupted,  and  mucii  less  to  experience  pain.  And 
we  very  much  wonder,  that  the  meaning  corrnpit,  which  has  already 
been  contested  by  Gousset,  and  so  admirably  by  Schultens  {ad  Jo- 
hum,  p.  964),  should  slill  be  always  given  in  the  Lexicons  as  un- 
doubted. The  passage  on  which  it  is  grounded  can  easily  be  set 
aside.  Neh.  1:7,  "  We  have  sinned  against  thee,"  ':]S  ijSnn  Shn, 
is  commonly  translated,  "  We  have  become  corrupt  to  thee,"  or  "  We 
have  acted  wickedly  towards  thee,"  but  it  must  rather  be,  "  We  are 
pledged  to  thee,"  omni  pignore  obstricti  tibi  tcnemur  ad,  poenam, 
which  Schultens  appropriately  explains  out  of  the  Arabic  Sentences; 
"  Every  man  is  pledged  to  death,  every  evil  doer  to  punishment,"  or 
"Every  man  pledges  himself  in  that  which  he  does."  Job  34  :  31, 
the  common  explanation  is,  "  I  repent  and  will  no  more  do  evil," 
(SnHk^  ah.)  But  it  must  rather  be  explained,  luo  quod  non  con- 
traxi,  jpoenas  pendo  innocens ;  properly,  "  I  repent,  or  suffer  without 
having  pledged  myself"  In  like  manner,  Frov.  13:  13,  "  Whoever 
despises  the  word,  lS  S^n;.,  is  pledged  to  himself,"  viz.  to  punish- 
ment. So  in  Kal  and  Niphal  there  is  not  a  single  example  in  which 
the  sense  to  destroy  is  even  probable.  That  it  occurs  in  Pi.  can  prove 
nothing.  For  this  may  be  founded  in  a  modification  of  the  idea  of  the 
verb,  produced  by  the  conjugation.  Snn,  to  bind,  and  to  be  bound, 
in  Pi.  to  ensnare,  and  then  destroy.  It  is  unnecessary  with  the 
recent  lexicographers  (comp.  e.  g.  Winer,  s.  v.)  to  assume,  that  a 
double  Toot  is  combined  in  hyr\.  Abicht  1.  c.  p.  1100,  has  already 
shown  how  all  the  senses  are  derived  from  one  original  meaning,  to 
bind,  and  to  be  bound.  2.  It  is  an  objection  to  this  interpretation,  as 
Calvin  has  already  remarked,  that  the  Lord  uses  this  staff  in  taking 
care  ofthe  flock  during  the  day  of  mercy,  and  when  that  terminates, 
according  to  v.  14,  breaks  it  in  pieces.  Hence  it  is  manifest,  that 
the  staff  must  designate,  not  punishments,  but  blessings.  As  the 
breaking  ofthe  first  staff,  so  also  does  that  of  the  second,  signify  the 
withdrawal  of  a  divine  blessing,  and,  accordingly,  the  taking  of  it 
must  signify  the  imparting  of  such  a  blessing,  and  indeed  especially 


172  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  H. 

that  of  harmony  among  the  people  themselves,  since  this  is  done 
away  by  the  breaking  of  the  staff".  3.  In  this  interpretation  also,  it 
is  difficult  to  explain  the  plural.  —  Other  interpreters,  seeing  it  to  be 
inadmissible,  have  attributed  to  the  word  the  sense  of  binding,  and 
indeed  under  a  threefold  modification.  Several  ancient  interpreters 
give  to  the  word  the  sense  cord,  while  they  regarded  "75n  either  only 
as  a  different  form  of  Snn,  cord,  or  pointed  differently.  So  the  Sev- 
enty, Aquil.,  Symm.  Jerome  :  "  Et  alteram  vocavi  funiciilos."  Then 
Calvin,  who  points  D'S^n.  Others,  as  Drusius,  Fuller,  Mark,  take 
the  word  as  a  participle  in  an  active  sense,  "  those  who  bind." 
Others  finally,  after  De  Dieu,  as  a  participle  in  a  passive  sense,  "  the 
allied,"  or  "the  confederated."  There  can  indeed  be  no  doubt,  that 
the  word  in  general  means  to  bind,  and  that  not  merely  in  a  literal, 
but  also  in  a  metaphorical  sense.  This  is  shown  by  the  derivative 
words  Son  a  sailor,  (ligator  funis  nautici,)  ^SH  cord,  and  connexion, 
company  (S^n  CN^?;,  1  Sam.  10 :  5,  10,  rightly  the  Seventy,  ^ogog 
TtQocprjTcov),  niSpnn,  consiUa  {nectcre  dolos.)  But  there  can  be  just 
as  little  doubt,  that  Snn  in  the  Hebrew,  along  with  the  active  has 
also  the  passive  sense.  This  appears  even  from  the  metaphorical  use 
of  the  verb  to  pledge,  it  signifies  not  merely  to  pledge  (to  bind  one 
to  others),  but  also  to  be  pledged,  to  pledge  one's  self  (to  be  bound, 
and  to  bind  one's  self),  comp.  the  cited  passages  fronj  Job  and  Nehe- 

miah.  In  the  Arabic,  the  two  corresponding  verbs  (J**'^andU''  , 
originally  constituting  only  one  root,  in  the  first  conjugation,  together 
with   the    active,    have    also    the    passive,    and    reflexive    meaning. 

^Vi^^  to  pledge  and  to  destroy,  both  arising  from  the  idea  of  bind- 
ing, the  latter  inasmuch  as  that  which  is  destroyed  finds  itself  under 

/     / 
constraint,  in  a   forced   condition,  A■^^  demens,  maniacus  fuit,  to 

11/  '  II 

be  bound  in  spirit.     \.fi.:^  foe,dus  inivit,  and  A-1-^"  prcegnans  fuit, 

a  condition  of  corporeal  bondage,  as  madness  is  of  spiritual.  The 
choice  accordingly  cannot  be  difficult  among  the  three  modifica- 
tions which  have  been  mentioned.  The  first,  as  being  arbitrary, 
cannot  come  under  consideration  ;  the  second  is  untenable,  because 
it  furnishes  no  reason  for  the  use  of  the  plural ;  for  who  should  the 
binders  be.  The  third  has  every  thing  in  its  favor.  According  to 
this,  in  full  accordance  with  v.  14,  by  the  second  staff"  is  designated 
the  brotherly  concord,  existing  among  the  covenant  people  them- 


ZECIIARIAH  Chap.  11.  173 

selves,  through  the  influence  of  the  Lord  during  the  time  of  mercy, 
—  |j<:^n-n5;?  "^i^^.^i,  "  and  so  I  fed  the  flock,"  is  not  a  superfluous 
repetition,  but  indicates  that  the  staff"  was  used  in  feeding.  Cor- 
rectly, as  to  the  sense,  several,  quibus  pavi  grcgcm. 

V.  8.  "  And  I  extirpated  the  three  shepherds  in  one  months  and  J 
was  disgusted  with  them ;  and  also  their  soul  rebelled  against  me." 
We  here  first  inquire,  who  is  to  be  understood  by  the  three  shep- 
herds. We  reject  at  once  the  view  of  those,  who,  as  Calvin,  Jahn, 
Rosenmiiller,  suppose,  that  the  definite  number  here  stands  for  the  ' 
indefinite,  three  for  several.  It  must  then  instead  of"  the  three  shep- 
herds," necessarily  read  "  three  shepherds,"  (comp.  Ewald,  p.  568.) 
In  like  manner,  the  article  decides  against  those  who  understand,  by 
the  three  shepherds,  three  definite  individuals.  These  individuals 
must  then  either  be  already  mentioned  in  the  preceding  context,  so 
that  it  was  requisite  only  to  refer  to  them,  —  but  here  no  mention 
has  preceded,  —  or  the  prophet  must  have  presupposed  them  to  be  so 
well  known  to  his  hearers,  that  they  could  not  be  mistaken.  But 
here  it  is  equally  difficult  to  find  three  such  individuals.  This  is 
evident  from  the  fact,  that,  among  the  defenders  of  the  reference  to 
three  individuals,  scarcely  two  coincide  in  determining  who  they 
are.  To  this  must  be  added,  that  the  most  of  these  interpretations 
are  to  be  at  once  rejected,  because  they  seek  the  three  shepherds  in 
the  time  before  the  Babylonish  exile,  while  the  discourse  here  re- 
lates to  a  future  event.  There  can  therefore  be  no  doubt,' that  the 
prophet  speaks,  not  of  three  individual  shepherds,  but  of  three  orders 
of  shepherds.  Those  who  have  perceived  this,  divide  again  into 
different  classes.  Junius  and  Trem.,  Piscator  and  Lightfoot,  under- 
stand the  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and  Essenes,  an  opinion  which  is 
at  once  to  be  rejected,  because  these  Jewish  parties  could  not  be 
designated  as  the  shepherds  of  the  people;  Mark,  the  civil,  ecclesi- 
astical, and  military  leaders  ;  but  he  has  furnished  no  proof  that  the 
latter  are  anywhere  represented,  as  one  of  the  pastoral  orders  exist- 
ing in  the  Theocracy.  If  it  is  established,  that  by  "  the  three  shep- 
herds "  are  designated  the  three  classes  of  shepherds,  or  leaders  of  the 
people  existing  in  the  Theocracy,  the  only  correct  course  must  be, 
to  inquire,  whether  in  Zechariah  himself,  or  in  the  other  authors  of 
the  Old  Testament,  especially  those  who  lived  nearest  to  him,  three 
classes  of  shepherds  are  mentioned,  as  the  only  leaders  of  the  The- 
ocracy. If  we  proceed  in  this  way,  it  appears  that  Zechariah  can- 
not possibly  have  had  in  view  any  other  than  the  civil  magistrates, 


174  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  U. 

the  priests,  and  the  prophets.  This  interpretation  is  the  most  an- 
cient of  all.  It  is  found  in  Theodoret :  Tovg  %vdai(av  liyu  ^aadeag, 
xul  ngoqirjTcig  xal  Ugiag.  dice  yaq  xoviviv  ruiv  tqiuv  inoifiaivovTO  Tuy- 
piaioiv.  Likewise  Cyril,  only  that  he  substitutes  the  scribes  for  the 
prophets,  for  a  reason  which  may  be  easily  conceived  :  Olfiai  8r)  ovv, 
oxi  jQEig  ovofid^si  noifiivag,  rovg  te  xcnu  vofiov  IsgaTSVovTag,  xal  zovg  xe- 
vctyfiivovg  xgirdg  xov  ).aov,  xal  ngoasxt,  xovxoig  xovg  ygu/.i/LtaioEiaaywyEig, 
xaxi^ooxov  yug  ovioi  xov  ^lagarjX.  Jerome  also  mentions  it  :  "  Legi 
in  cujusdam  commtntariis  -pastores  domini  indignatione  succisos  in 
sacerdotibus,  etfolsis  prophetis,  c.t  regibus  intelligi  JudcBorum,  quod 
post  passioncm  Christi  uno  omnia  succisa  si7it  tempore."  That  it 
was  not  exclusively  prevalent  in  later  times,  arose  from  the  difficulty 
of  showing  the  existence  of  the  prophetic  order  in  the  time  of  Christ. 
How  else  could  other  shepherds  have  been  thought  of  than  those 
who  uniformly  occur  in  connexion,  as  such,  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
others,  and  who  at  the  same  time,  as  here,  are  represented  as  the 
chief  cause  of  the  destruction  and  misery  of  the  people?  Numerous 
passages  of  Jeremiah  may  be  compared,  e.  g.  2  :  8,  "  The  priests 
spake  not,  Where  is  the  Lord  ?  the  students  of  the  law  (likewise  the 
priests)  knew  me  not,  the  shepherds  (here  especially  of  the  civil 
magistrates)  sinned  against  me,  and  the  prophets  prophesied  in 
Baal  " ;  v.  26,  "  As  the  thief  is  ashamed  when  he  is  caught,  so  shall 
the  house  of  Israel  be  ashamed,  they,  —  their  kings,  their  princes 
(both  together  constitute  the  one  order  of.  the  civil  magistrates), 
and  their  priests,  and  their  prophets."  18  :  18,  "  And  they  say  ;  Up, 
let  us  lay  plots  against  Jeremiah ;  for  the  law  cannot  perish  from  the 
priests,  nor  counsel  from  the  wise  (counsel  along  with  might,  the 
peculiar  attribute  of  the  civil  magistrates,  n^UJ),  nor  the  word  of 
the  prophets."  If  we  compare  Zechariah  himself,  we  find  the  two 
other  classes  of  shepherds,  together  with  the  prophetic  order,  which 
he  himself  represents,  most  definitely  mentioned,  chap.  4  :  12  -  14, 
To  the  question,  What  are  the  two  branches  of  the  olive  trees,  which 
supply  the  candlesticks  (the  Theocracy)  with  the  oil  expressed  from 
their  fruits  ?  the  prophet  receives  the  answer,  "  These  are  the  two 
oil-children,  who  stand  before  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth."  Here 
the  priesthood  and  the  civil  magistracy  are  designated  as  the  two 
orders,  through  whom  the  Lord  imparts  his  grace  to  the  Theocracy, 
the  former  at  that  time  represented  by  Joshua,  the  other  by  Zerub- 
babel.  For  that  these  were  designated,  not  as  individuals,  appears 
from  the  comparison  of  chap.  3,  where  Joshua  uniformly  appears. 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  175 

not  as  an  individual,  but  as  a  representative,  partly  of  the  priesthood, 
partly  of  the  whole  people.  The  passage  is  therefore  so  far  analo- 
gous to  this,  that  in  it  the  orders  of  the  leaders  of  the  people  appear 
personified  as  individuals.  In  this  relation,  Mai.  2:7,  is  still  to  be 
compared,  where  the  order  of  the  priesthood  is  called  "  the  servant  of 
the  Lord  of  Hosts."  —  The  only  difliculty  that  still  remains,  is,  how 
the  prophetic  order  can  here  be  mentioned  together  with  the  three 
orders  of  leaders  in  the  Theocracy,  since  it  had  already  ceased  at 
the  time  of  the  fulfilment.  We  answer,  the  prophet,  in  accordance 
with  the  nature  of  prophecy,  here  also  designates  the  future,  by  an 
analogy  existing  in  his  time.  As  the  order  of  the  civil  shepherds 
continued,  even  when  the  kingdom  had  come  to  an  end,  so  also  the 
prophetic  order,  as  to  its  essence,  continued  after  the  cessation  of  the 
prophetic  gift.  Its  destination  was,  to  impart  to  the  people  the  word 
and  will  of  God,  Jer.  18  :  18.  Before  the  completion  of  the  Canon, 
this  was  done  by  a  revelation  granted  immediately  to  them,  and 
afterwards  by  the  investigation  of  former  revelations  under  the  guid- 
ance of  the  spirit  of  God,  and  by  the  application  of  them  to  the  ex- 
isting relations.  In  the  place  of  the  prophets  succeeded  the  scribes, 
to  whom,  according  to  Sirach,  chap.  39,  the  Lord  richly  gave  the 
spirit  of  understanding,  who  studied  the  wisdom  of  the  ancients  and 
searched  the  prophets,  who  propounded  doctrine  and  judgment,  and 
by  whom  wise  sentences  were  invented.  They  stood  to  the  ancient 
prophets  in  the  same  relation  as  the  enlightened  teachers  of  the  later 
Christian  church  to  the  prophets  of  the  New  Testament.  —  The 
question  now  arises,  what  is  to  be  understood  by  the  extirpation  of 
the  three  shepherds.  Several  interpreters  suppose  a  literal  extirpa- 
tion of  the  individuals.  But  then  they  are  embarrassed  by  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  the  extirpation  of  the  shepherds  precedes  the  break- 
ing of  the  staves.  The  method  by  which  they  have  endeavoured  to 
free  themselves  from  this  embarrassment  is  inadmissible.  (Frisch- 
muth  :  "  Bene  Sanctius  monet  kystei-^n  proteron  hie  esse,  sive  prolep- 
sin,  quando  quidem  is  ordo  rerum  sit,  ut  prius  iratus  fuerit  et  virga 
abscissa,  qiiam  pastores  occiderentur.  Aique  hcec  trajectio  itidem 
Abarhaneli  obscrvata."]  The  following /m^.  with  vau  convers.  must 
then  be  understood  as  pluperfect ;  but  this  tense  forms  the  exact 
antithesis  to  the  fut.  with  van  convers.  ;  Ewald,  p.  543.  Actions 
which  are  expressed  by  a  series  offut.  with  vau  convers.  must  always 
follow  each  other  in  regular  succession  ;  Ewald,  p.  541.  It  cannot, 
therefore,  be  a  literal  extirpation  which  is  spoken  of,  because  imme- 


176  ZECIIARIAH  Chap.  11. 

diately  thereafter,  the  shepherds  appear  as  still  in  existence.  It  is 
they  who  provoke  the  good  shepherd  to  impatience,  and  manifest  the 
utmost  hostility  towards  him,  which  likewise,  on  account  of  the  use 
o^ihefut.  with  vau  convers.  ("ivr?ni),  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  preced- 
ing the  extirpation,  but  as  its  consequence.  It  is  their  obstinate 
resistance,  rendering  useless  all  his  pastoral  efforts,  which  moves 
him  to  break  the  staves,  and  relinquish  his  office.  We  can  there- 
fore conceive  only  of  an  extirpation  of  the  shepherds,  as  such,  i.  e. 
a  deposition  of  them  from  their  pastoral  office.  To  effect  this  was 
the  most  zealous  object  of  the  Lord  during  his  pastoral  office  ;  but 
the  same  disposition,  which  rendered  them  deserving  of  this,  also 
prevented  the  sentence,  spoken  against  them  with  full  authority, 
from  being  carried  into  execution  in  its  whole  extent.  Only  the 
most  miserable  of  the  sheep,  who  have  regard  to  the  Lord,  (v.  11,) 
withdrew  themselves  from  their  pernicious  guidance.  After  the 
rejection  of  the  whole  people,  who  knew  not  their  own  good,  the 
sentence  was  first  executed  in  its  whole  extent  by  foreign  foes, 
while  the  people  did  not  now  receive  good  shepherds  instead  of  bad, 
which  would  have  been  the  case,  if  they  had  themselves  carried  into 
execution  the  good  shepherd's  decree  of  extirpation.  —  The  extirpa- 
tion of  the  shepherds  happened  in  one  month.  This  cannot,  as 
Kimchi,  Calvin,  and  others  suppose,  stand  simply  for  "  i?t  a  little 
time."  Hitzig  might  then  justly  ask,  1.  c.  p.  30,  "  Wherefore  then 
the  month,  when  probably  a  day  or  hour  would  be  more  suitably 
mentioned  ?  "  That  tlie  prophet,  if  he  designed  merely  to  express  the 
shortest  time,  would  rather  have  said,  "  in  one  day,"  appears  espe- 
cially from  the  parallel  passage,  chap.  3  :  9,  where  it  is  said  of  the 
atonement  to  be  effected  by  the  Messiah :  "  I  blot  out  the  sin  of  this 
land  in  one  day,"  ("in>>>'  Di'?.)  The  expression,  "in  one  month,"  as 
whose  terminus  a  quo  the  commencement  of  the  pastoral  office  is  to 
be  taken,  expresses  rather,  in  relation  to  the  phrase  "  in  one  day,"  a 
longer,  and  in  relation  to  all  other  periods,  a  shorter  time.  It  shows, 
that  the  extirpation  of  the  three  shepherds  is  not,  like  the  atonement, 
to  be  considered  as  a  single  act,  but  as  one  protracted  for  some  time. 
Thus,  therefore,  in  a  very  appropriate  manner,  the  continued  efforts 
of  Christ  are  designated,  to  deliver  the  poor  people,  the  lost  sheep 
of  the  house  of  Israel,  out  of  the  spiritual  power  of  their  blind  and 
corrupt  leaders. — Dnn  "'tJ'gj  ii*j5i?l,  properly  brevis  facta  est  anima 
mea  in  eis.  Rightly  Schullens  on  Prov.  20  :  21  :  "  Ea  phrasis  non 
tarn  tcedium  signiftcat,  qiiam  indignationem  ex  intoUrandis  injuriis 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  177 

oriundam,  sub  quibus  anima  velut  angatur  ac  suffocetur.  —  Ubique 
impatientia  gravissime  vexati,  oppressi,  elisi,  qui  viz  rtspirare  queat 
amplius,  elucel.''  The  verb  Sna  is  here  explained  by  most  interpre- 
ters, according  to  a  comparison  of  the  Syriac,  by  to  experience  dis- 
gust. But  this  is  not  entirely  accurate.  Schultens  I.  c.  has  already 
shown,  that  the  verb  designates  the  inimical  disposition  of  the  three 
shepherds  against  the  good  shepherd,  and  at  the  same  time  its 
moral  turpitude ;  and  therefore  it  could  not  have  been  used  of  the 
disposition  of  the  good  shepherd  towards  the  bad.  In  Arabic  (V^'? 
designates,  in  general,  a  low,  vile  disposition,  and  is  used  especially 
of  base  avarice.  In  Hebrew  this  meaning  prevails  in  the  only  pas- 
sage besides,  where  the  verb  occurs,  Prov.  20  :  21.  ri'^rinr?  nSqj  ia 
there,  an  inheritance  obtained  in  a  base  manner.  The  evil  shep- 
herds are  inflamed  with  mean  hatred  against  the  good  shepherd, 
because  he  exposes  their  meanness,  and  will  take  from  them  their 
dominion.  They  do  all  in  their  power,  therefore,  to  hinder  him  in 
the  execution  of  his  commission.  Their  soul  does  not,  according  to 
the  favorite  supposition  of  the  recent  interpreters  of  the  Psalms, 
stand  for  the  bare  personal  pronoun,  just  as  if  one  should  assert, 
that  "  he  causes  me  grief  in  the  soul"  is  nothing  more  than,  "  he 
causes  me  grief"  ;  it  rather  signifies  the  violence  and  depth  of  the 
abhorrence. 

V.  9.  "  Thus  said  I  then  :  I  will  not  feed  you ;  that  which  dies, 
shall  die,  that  which  is  destroyed,  shall  be  destroyed,  and  those  that 
remain,  shall  consume  one  another."  Calvin  :  "  Quando  no7i  sunt 
sanabiles,  neque  remedium  patiuntur  adhiberi  suis  malis,jam  reUnquo 
eos ;  experientur,  quid  sit  carere  bono  pastore."  The  feminines  of 
the  verse  are  to  be  referred  to  the  sheep.  Alter  the  Seventy  (mtio- 
■&vi]axiTb)),  and  Jerome,  several  take  the  futures  optatively  ;  but  this 
is  forbidden  by  the  form,  for,  in  that  case,  theyw^.  apoc.  must  stand 
instead  of  nion,  Ewald,  p.  527.  We  must,  therefore,  rather  under- 
stand the  future  as. prophetical.  The  dead  and  the  destroyed,  that 
which  is  devoted  to  so  sure  a  destruction,  that  it  can  be  already 
considered  as  dead  and  destroyed.  This  destruction  could  have 
been  turned  aside  only  by  obedience  to  the  good  shepherd.  Now, 
since  he  has  been  compelled  to  relinquish  his  office,  the  matter 
takes  its  natural  course.  A  threefold  sort  of  destruction  is  here 
given,  as  the  comparison  of  parallel  passages  shows  ;  contagious  dis* 
eases,  as  they  are  accustomed  to  arise  in  besieged  cities,  ("  the  dead 
will  die")  a  violent  death  by  foreign  enemies,  and  a  fearful  rage  of 

VOL.  II.  23 


178  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

the  citizens  against  one  another,  occasioned  by  the  distress.  These 
passages  are  as  follows  :  Jer.  15  :  1,  2  ;  "  And  the  Lord  said  to  me  : 
Though  Moses  and  Samuel  stood  before  me,  my  mind  could  not  be 
towards  this  people,  cast  them  out  of  my  sight,  and  let  them  go  forth. 
And  if  they  say  unto  thee  :  Whither  shall  we  go  forth?  then  thou 
shall  tell  them,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  he  that  is  for  death,  (is  destined, 
he  goes)  to  death,  and  he  who  is  for  the  sword,  to  the  sword  ;  he  who 
is  for  hunger,  to  hunger  ;  and  he  who  is  for  captivity,  to  captivity." 
34  :  17,  "  Behold,  ye  have  not  hearkened,  that  ye  proclaim  liberty, 
every  one  for  his  brother,  and  every  one  for  his  neighbour;  behold, 
I  proclaim  then  for  you  a  liberty  to  the  sword,  to  the  pestilence,  and 
to  \\\e  famine."  Ezek.  6  :  12,  "  That  which  is  afar  off  shall  die  by  the 
pestilence,  that  which  is  near  shall  fall  by  the  sword,  and  that  which 
remains  and  is  preserved  shall  die  by  hunger."  Comp.  also  below, 
chap.  13  :  8,  where  "  they  shall  die  on  the  sick  bed,?;'!^'.,"  and  "  they 
shall  be  extirpated,  ^n'^3';,"  correspond  to  non  and  nn3n.  That  this 
threefold  sort  of  destruction  actually  effected  the  overthrow  of  the 
Jewish  slate,  needs  no  farther  proof.  —  "  And  those  which  are  left 
shall  cat  the  jitsh  one  of  another."  Mark  :  "  Ex  rabie  fcro,  in 
quant  prceter  naturam  hm  oves  degenerahunt."  In  a  manner  entirely 
similar  the  rage  of  the  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  against  one 
another  before  its  destruction,  occasioned  by  their  distress,  is  de- 
scribed in  Isaiah  9:  IS  sq.  "  They  spare  not  one  another.  They 
devour  on  the  right  hand,  they  devour  on  the  left  hand,  and  are  not 
satisfied,  each  one  devours  the  flesh  of  his  arm,"  (he  rages  against 
his  own  flesh,  inasmuch  as  those  who  devour  one  another  are  mem- 
bers of  one  community,  one  political  body.) 

V.  10.  "  And  so  I  took  my  staff  Grace  and  brake  it,  that  I  might 
abolish  my  covenant  which  I  had  concluded  with  all  nations."  That 
which  had  been  predicted  in  the  preceding  verse  in  words,  is  here, 
and  v.  14,  indicated  by  a  double  symbolical  action;  the  devastation 
by  foreign  nations  by  the  breaking  of  the  staff  Kindness  or  Grace, 
the  internal  discord  by  the  breaking  of  the  staff  of  the  Allied,  or 
more  correctly,  the  prediction  contained  in  the  following  verse,  is 
here  followed  by  the- account  of  its  execution.  Calvin:  "  Emphatice 
hoc  dictum,  est,  quasi  diceret  propheta,  non  debere  adscribi  fortunce, 
quod  res  in  detcrius  nmtatce  sint,  quia  hoc  modo  exsecutus  sit  domi- 
nus  judicium  suum,  postquam  niriiis  vatienter  tiderit  maUtiam  popu- 
li."  The  image  of  the  flock  is  not  strictly  preserved  ;  the  thing 
signified  appears  in  the  phrase,  "  with  all  nations";  in   accordance 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  179 

with  the  image  it  must  have  been,  "  with  all  wild  beasts."  Comp. 
Is.  50  :  9,  "  All  ye  beasts  of  the  field,  come  to  devour  ;  come,  all  ye 
beasts  in  the  wood."  The  thought,  that  hitherto  the  covenant  people 
had  been  preserved  by  a  secret  influence  of  the  divine  omnipotence 
from  destruction  by  foreign  foes,  is  figuratively  expressed,  as  though 
the  Lord  had  made  a  covenant  for  tiie  good  of  the  Israelites,  with 
all  nations  of  the  earth,  which  is  now  abolished  by  the  breaking  of 
the  staff  Grace.  A  similar  figurative  representation  is  found  else- 
where also.  Thus  it  is  said.  Job  5:23,  in  order  to  express  the 
thought,  that  no  creature  could  injure  him  who  was  befriended  by 
God;  "For  with  the  stones  of  the  field  shall  be  thy  covenant,  and 
the  beasts  of  the  field  shall  befriend  thee."  Thus  it  is  said,  Hos. 
2 :  20,  to  designate  the  security  of  the  covenant  people  before  earthly 
foes,  after  they  had  obtained  favor  from  their  chief  foe,  the  Lord  ; 
"  And  [  make  for  them  a  covenant  in  this  day  with  the  beasts  of 
the  field,  and  the  fowls  of  the  heaven,  and  the  worm  of  the  earth; 
and  I  will  break  the  bow,  and  the  sword,  and  the  war,  and  I  make 
them  dwell  safely."  But  the  passage  which  Zechariah  seems  to 
have  had  immediately  in  view,  is  that  of  Ezek.  31  :  25,  "  And  I 
conclude  for  them  a  covenant  of  peace,  and  make  the  evd  beasts  to 
cease  out  of  the  land,  and  they  dwell  in  the  wilderness  securely,  and 
sleep  in  the  woods,"  which  differs  from  the  one  before  us,  only  in 
more  strictly  preserving  the  image  of  a  flock.  Zechariah  announces, 
that  this  covenant,  concluded  after  the  return  from  the  exile,  by  the 
Lord,  for  the  good  of  his  people,  should  now  be  abolished  by  the 
punishment  of  their  shocking  apostasy.  —  Had  due  regard  been 
paid  to  these  parallel  passages  we  should  scarcely  have  had  to  men- 
tion other  interpretations  of  the  verse.  That  by  Blaney,  "  in  order  to 
annul  my  covenant,  which  I  had  concluded  biifore  all  nations,  coram 
omnibus  populi^,"  does  not  deserve  to  be  refuted  ;  perhaps,  however, 
that  may,  according  to  which,  by  "  the  nations,"  the  tribes  of  Lsrael 
are  understood.  (Mark  :  "  Cum  numerosis  Irihubus  Israel.")  It  is 
liable  to  the  objection,  that,  by  the  breaking  of  the  staff  Grace,  a 
special  effect-  of  the  divine  displeasure  must  be  intended,  because 
otherwise  the  breaking  of  the  staff  of  the  Allied  does  not  accord  with 
it.  Moreover,  even  assuming,  that,  by  "  the  nations,"  the  tribes  of 
Israel  could  be  designated,  still  this  interpretation  is  here  excluded 
by  the  subjoined  "^3.  But  the  assertion,  that  U"?p  not  unfrequently 
stands  for  the  tribes  of  Israel,  is  entirely  erroneous.  1  he  word 
D'?;r  never  occurs  simply  in  this  sense.     The  passages  which  are 


180  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

cited  in  favor  of  it  (comp.  e.  g.  Winer,  s.  v.)  fall  into  three  classes. 
1.  Those  in  wjiich  this  supposition  is  entirely  groundless,  as  Gen. 
49  :  10,  Deut.  32  :  8,  Is.  62 :  10,  (according  to  Ges.  on  the  passage,) 
where  the  □'?;?  plainly  designates  heathen  nations.  2.  Those  where 
Q"";'^  stands  in  the  sense  pevple,  e.  g.  I.ev.  J9  :  16,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
calumniate  ^"'ifjn."  21  :  14,  "  He  married  a  virgin  V^^^n,"  (comp. 
7  :  20,  21:1,  4,  &c.)  Deut.  33:  3.  If  it  there  refer  to  the  tribes, 
it  must  have  the  article  ;  the  meaning  people  appears  also  from 
V.  19,  where  it  is  said  of  Zebulon  and  Issachar,  "  People  will  call 
them  to  the  mountain."  3.  Those  where  DTi'  is  spoken  of  the 
Israelitish  tribes  only  by  a  kind  of  hyperbole,  by  a  silent  comparison 
with  numerous  nations.  Thus,  perhaps.  Gen.  28  :  3,  in  the  promise 
to  Abraham,  "  Thou  shalt  l)ecome  a  multitude  of  nations,"  although 
here  also  a  concurrent  reference  to  the  other  nations,  to  bs  descended 
from  Abraham,  can  be  assumed  ;  certainly,  however,  chap.  48  :  4, 
in  the  promise  to  Jacob,  "  I  make  thee  for  a  multitude  of  nations." 
Surely  we  cannot  conclude  from  this  passage,  that  D'^SJ^  could  be 
used  also  of  the  Israelites,  where  it  is  not  the  object,  as  there,  to 
render  prominent  the  great  increase  of  the  people,  in  contrast  with 
their  small  beginning. 

V.  11.  "And  so  was  the  covenant  in  that  day  abolished;  and 
therefore  the  most  miserable  sheep,  lolio  adhered  to  me,  experienced 
that  this  is  the  tvord  of  the  Lord."  It  appears  from  this  verse,  that 
the  efforts  of  the  good  shepherd  were  still  not  entirely  in  vain,  but 
that  a  small  remnant  of  true  disciples  joined  him.  These  were  de- 
signated by  those,  who  observed  him,  had  their  eye  directed  contin- 
ually to  him,  did  all  in  accordance  with  his  nod  and  will.  As,  after 
the  abolition  of  the  covenant,  the  enemies  invaded  the  land,  they 
perceived,  that  what  had  been  spoken  beforehand  of  the  destruction 
to  be  effected  by  the  Lord,  was  no  empty  human  threatening,  but 
really  a  divine  prophecy.  The  prophet  here  also  employs  the  past, 
because  that  which  was  represented  in  his  inward  vision,  had  already 
taken  place.  Were  the  prophecy  divested  of  the  drapery  of  a  sym- 
bolic action,  it  would  read,  "  Then  when  my  covenant  has  been 
abolished,  my  worshippers  shall  know,  from  the  fulfilment,  the  divine 
origin  of  this  my  sentence  concerning  Israel."  N-in  relates  to  the 
prediction  contained  in  v.  9,  10.  Verbally  parallel  is  Jer.  32:  6-8, 
"  The  Lord  said  to  me ;  behold,  Hanameel  comes  to  thee  saying, 
buy  my  field  ;  and  Hanameel  came  to  me  and  said.  Buy  yet  my 
field,  xn  nlnriDl  •'?  Vl^l,  and  so  I  knew,  that  it  was  the  word 


ZECHARIAH    Chap.  11.  181 

of  the  Lord."  By  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  word,  Jeremiah  is 
here  still  more  firmly  convinced,  that  he  has  not  confounded  a 
human  suggestion  with  a  divine  revelation.  That  the  fulfilment 
would  testify  for  the  divine  origin  of  his  prophecies,  is  a  favorite 
remark  of  Zechariah,  comp.  2  :  13,  where  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
says,  "  Then  shall  ye  know  that  the  Lord  of  Hosts  has  sent  me." 
In  like  manner,  v.  15,  6  :  15,  in  the  daij,  viz.  "on  which  I  had  bro- 
ken my  staff"  ;  or,  without  a  figure,  "  after  I  had  turned  away  my 
favor  from  the  people,  the  hostile  nations  hitherto  restrained  by  me, 
fell  upon  them."     jD,  therefore,  even  from  this. 

V.  12.  "  And  I  said  to  them ;  If  it  seems  good  to  you,  give  me  my 
reward;  if  not,  tvithholdit ;  and  they  tveighed  to  me  as  my  reicard 
thirty  pieces  of  silver.^'  "  And  I  said  to  them  :  "  Jahn  remarks,  that 
this  cannot  refer  to  the  flock,  but  to  the  shepherds,  because  only 
from  them  could  the  reward  be  demanded.  But  this  is  incorrect. 
Since  the  shepherd  deals  with  the  flock  itself  respecting  that,  which 
in  other  cases  was  wont  to  be  transacted  only  with  the  owner,  he 
shows,  that  this  flock  consists  of  rational  creatures.  With  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  inferior  and  more  despised  portion  of  the  people,  with 
whom  the  pastoral  office  of  the  Lord,  as  had  been  said  in  the  fore- 
going verse,  had  been  attended  with  a  desirable  result,  he  here 
treats  with  the  greater  and  more  powerful  portion,  who  had  com- 
pelled him  by  their  obstinacy  to  relinquish  his  office.  It  is  true, 
that  in  this  transaction  the  leaders  of  the  people  are  chiefly  to  be 
considered,  not,  however,  as  shepherds,  but  as  members  of  the  flock, 
as  also  in  Ezek.  chap.  34,  they  appear  now  as  shepherds,  now  as  he- 
goats,  or  as  fat  sheep,  in  contrast  with  those  which  are  poor.  Of  the 
shepherds  as  such,  the  Lord  could  not  demand  the  reward,  because 
he  had  not  devoted  himself  at  all  to  their  service,  but  had  endeavour- 
ed to  rescue  the  flock  from  them.  The  sense  of  the  words.  If  it  seems 
good  to  you,  give  me  my  retcard ;  if  not,  withhold  it,  is  well  unfolded 
by  Calvin  :  "  Hie  exprimit  snmmam  indignationem,  quemadmodum 
si  quis  exprobret  malitiam  ct  ingratitudinem  proximo  svo :  Agnosce 
hencficium,  si  voles  ;  sin  minus,  mihi  perierit ;  ego  non  euro :  ego 
video  te  esse  nehulonem,  qui  indignus  fueras,  quern  ego  liberaliter 
tractarcm.  Ego  igitur  nihil  moror  tuns  compensationes,  sed  interea 
tuum  erat  videre,  quid  mihi  debercs.'"  The  parallel  passages  are 
Jer.  40  :  4,  "  If  it  is  good  in  thine  eyes  to  go  with  me  to  Babylon, 
go;  and,  if  it  is  evil  in  thine  eyes,  refrain,  Snn."  Ezek.  3:27, 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  He  that  hears,  let  him  hear,  and  he   that 


182  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

refrains,  let  him  refrain,  S^^n^  '?."?n7?.1,"  comp.  2:5-7,  3  :  11,  Jer. 
26  :  14.  —  My  reward,  that  which  I  deserve,  which  I  have  earned  by 
severe  labor.  They  weighed;  gold  for  a  long  time  was  not  counted, 
but  weighed ;  hence,  long  after  this  practice  had  ceased,  they  used 
the  expression  "  to  weigh  "  for  "  to  count,"  comp.  Jahn,  Archdol. 
I.  2,  §  138.  By  the  reward,  the  interpreters  for  the  most  part  un- 
derstand repentance  and  faith.  So  Jarchi  :  "  Servate  prccceptum 
meum ;  hcsc  enim  merces  mea  erit  pro  omni  bono,  quod  dedi  vobis, 
quemadmodum  sua  pastori  merces  datur."  Theodoret :  'Evzavda 
Toli'vv  oItH  fiiv  avTovg  o  dsanoiijg  j^ia&ov  xijg  evfQysalag  xi]v  nioTiv ' 
ol  Se  avTi  TavTrig  zovg  T^Luaoixn  tdoauv  aqyvQovg.  Eusebius  :  Aliatv 
avToi'g  cag  slxog  xuqnovg  svaf^siag  xai  dsiyfia  trjg  ug  avxov  niaTsag. 
Two  interpretations  in  reference  to  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  are 
adopted  by  those  who  do  not,  like  far  the  greater  number  of  Chris- 
tian interpreters,  find  a  direct  and  exclusive  reference  to  the  thirty 
pieces  of  silver,  received  by  Judas.  The  one  is  that  of  Jarchi  and 
Kimchi  :  "  Fucrunt  pauci  inter  illos  honi,  facicntes  voluntatem 
?)icani."  The  other,  that  of  Calvin  and  Grotius,  which  we  give  in 
the  words  of  the  former  :  "  Per  vile  pretium,  quod  bubulco  dignum 
esset,  intelligit  frivolas  nugas,  quibus  Judcbi  putabant  se  posse  satis- 
facere  deo.  Requirit  cordis  intcgritatem,  ct  ideo  se  nobis  addicit,  ut 
vicissiin  nos  totos  possideat.  Hoc  igitur  erat  pretium  laboris,  quod 
dominus  fuerat  meritus,  hcec  erat  justa  merces,  si  se  in  obsequium 
totos  JudcBi  addicerent  ejus  verbo."  —  But  all  these  interpretations 
are  untenable.  We  cannot,  by  the  reward,  understand  faith  or 
piety  of  heart;  for  the  Lord  does  not  demand  this  reward,  until  he 
has  already  entirely  given  over  the  people,  withdrawn  his  favor  from 
them,  until  therefore  they  could  no  longer  bring  forth  the  fruits  of 
repentance,  but  were  rather  devoted  to  destruction.  This  demand 
was  made  during  the  time  of  his  pastoral  office.  By  the  thirty  pieces 
of  silver,  we  cannot  understand  the  repentance  and  faith  of  the  few 
believers ;  for  then  they  would  be  something  good,  while  still,  accord- 
ing to  V.  13,  they  were  to  be  thrown  into  an  unclean  place.  As 
little  can  they  mean  sacrifices  and  ceremonies,  without  faith.  For 
these  must  be  more  particularly  specified,  which  is  not  done  in  any 
measure  except  on  the  false  supposition,  that  by  the  reward,  which 
the  Lord  required,  faith  and  sincere  piety  were  designated,  — 
Rather,  only  the  thought  is  expressed,  that  after  the  Lord  has  given 
up  his  pastoral  office,  and  already  proclaimed  the  woe  upon  Jerusa- 
lem, the  people  have  sinned  against  him  by  an  action  of  the  blackest 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  183 

ingratitude.  That  the  good  shepherd  had  well-groiinded  claims  to 
the  gratitude  of  the  people,  is  expressed  by.  his  asking  them  for  the 
reward  of  his  services  ;  the  wicked  ingratitude  of  the  people,  by 
their  offering  to  weigh  him  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  a  sum  so  con- 
temptible {Maimonides,  Mor.  Nib.  C.  40.  Part.  3,  ^' vt  plus  minus 
reperies  liomincm  liberum  ccstimari  sexaginta  siclis,  servutn  vera 
triginta"  ;  comp,  Exod.  21  :  32),  that  the  offer  of  it  for  such  ser- 
vices, performed  by  such  a  person,  is  more  offensive  than  an  entire 
refusal,  and  therefore  suited  rather  to  heighten  than  diminish  the 
ingratitude,  a  thought  which  in  the  following  verse  is  embodied  in  a 
symbolic  action.  That  by  this,  the  only  correct  interpretation,  much 
insight  is  gained  into  (he  prophecy  itself,  as  well  as  its  relation  to 
the  evangelical  history,  is  obvious. 

V.  13.  "And  the  Lord  said  to  mc ;  throw  it  to  the  potter,  the 
glorious  price  at  lohich  I  am  estimated  hy  them  ;  and  I  took  the  thirty 
pieces  of  silver,  and  cast  them  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  that  they 
might  "be  carried  from  there  to  the  potter."  The  Lord  addresses  the 
prophet,  who  represents  his  person.  This  clearly  appears  from  "  at 
which  I  have  been  estimated."  The  verb  ■^Sj^'H,  "  to  cast  away," 
sometimes  with  the  accessory  idea  of  contempt;  comp.  Jer.  22  :  19, 
"  He  (Jehoiakim)  shall  be  cast  away  beyond  the  gates  of  Jerusalem." 
52  :  3,  "  Until  he  cast  them  away  from  his  sight."  Ez.  20  :  8.  The 
expression  to  the  putter  could  not  have  been  so  variously  misunder- 
stood, nor,  as  it  has  happened  in  the  case  of  Rosenmiiller,  {Etsi  vero 
h(EC  verba  satis  sint  aperta,  sensu  tamen  ita  sunt  occulta,  nt  cum 
sagacioribiis  enucleandum  reliiiquere  coacti  simus,)  would  the  inter- 
pretation have  been  entirely  given  over  on  account  of  it,  if  the  aids 
to  be  found  in  Jeremiah  had  been  carefully  employed,  who  performs 
the  same  service  for  Zechariah,  as  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  for  the 
Apocalypse.  The  conviction  would  then  have  been  soon  produced, 
that  "  to  the  potter  "  here  is  the  same  as  "  in  an  unclean  place,  to 
the  executioner,  or  to  the  flayer."  The  potter,  who  is  here  meant, 
(probably,  as  appears  from  the  concurrent  use  of  the  article  here,  in 
Jeremiah,  and  Matthew,  the  potter  who  worked  for  the  temple, 
since  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that,  in  general,  there  was  but  one 
potter  for  all  Jerusalem,)  had  his  workshop  in  the  valley  of  Hinnora, 
probably  because  the  earth,  required  for  his  business,  was  found 
there  in  peculiar  abundance,  or  of  a  better  quality.  This  appears 
from  the  following  reasons.  That  the  workshop  was  out  of  the  city, 
and  indeed   in  the  valley  which  lies  beneath  it,   appears  from  Jer. 


184  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

18  :  1,  where  the  prophet,  while  in  the  temple,  receives  the  command, 
"Arise,  go  down  to  the  house  of  the  potter;  "  comp.  v.  3,  "  And 
I  went  down  to  the  house  of  the  potter."  But  we  are  led  especially 
to  the  valley  of  Hinnom  by  Jer.  19  :  2.  "Go  down  to  the  valley  of 
the  son  of  Hinnom,  which  lies  in  the  brick  gate,  and  proclaim  there 
the  words  which  I  will  speak  to  thee."  According  to  this,  the  gate, 
which  led  to  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  was  called  the  brick  or  pot  gate, 
from  the  pottery  before  it.  For  that  niD"^nn  li'^  must  be  thus 
translated  (comp.  Winer,  s.  v.)  properly  "  the  gate  of  the  pottery," 
appears  from  the  plain  allusion  to  v.  1,  where  tfM.n  would  have  been 
superfluous,  as  well  as  from  the  fact  that  Jeremiah  would  not  have 
named  the  gate  before  which  the  valley  of  Hinnom  lay,  because 
generally  known  and  elsewhere  designated  only  by  the  name  of 
the  valley-gate,  (comp.  Neh.  2  :  13  -  15,  with  Jer.  2  :  23,  in  which 
latter  place  the  valley  of  Hinnom  is  called  y.ai  i^oyJ]v  the  valley,)  if 
there  were  not  a  reference  to  the  thing  itself  in  the  appellation  of 
the  gate.  Tiie  valley  of  Hinnom,  however,  formerly  the  scene  of 
the  most  frightful  idolatrous  abominations,  was  regarded  by  the  later 
Jews  with  disgust  and  horror,  as  an  unclean  place,  after  Josiah  had 
polluted  it  by  carrion,  human  bones,  and  such  like,  comp,  2  Kings 
23:  10;  so  that  finally  even  the  opinion  expressed  in  the  Talmud 
was  formed,  that  there  was  the  mouth  of  hell ;  comp.  Lightfoot, 
Centur.  Chorograph.  Matth.  PrcBin.  Opp.  t.  II.  p.  200 :  "  Sub 
templum  secundum,  cum  evannerant  ea,  qua:  csternam  infamiam  huic 
loco  inusseruni,  remansit  tamen  tantum  fosditatis  atque  abominandi 
nominis,  ut  ttiam  jam  vivam  reprcBsentationem  orci  ceque  pro;  se  fer- 
ret, ac  olim.  —  Erat  communis  totius  u7-bis  sentina,  quo  conjiuzit 
sordes  omnis  atque  omnimoda  spur  cities.'''  That  Zechariah  caused 
the  base  reward  to  be  thrown  into  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  in  general, 
and  that  he  designates,  as  the  particular  place,  the  workshop  or  the 
field  of  the  potter,  have  each  a  distinct  reference  to  a  prophecy  of 
Jeremiah,  and  presuppose  readers  acquainted  with  his  writings. 
The  first  refers  to  Jeremiah,  chap.  19.  The  prophet  there  throws 
an  empty  earthen  flask  into  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  accompanied  by 
several  of  the  oldest  of  the  people  and  most  distinguished  priests. 
The  meaning  of  this  symbolic  action  is  thus  given  :  "  Because  they 
have  filled  this  place  with  the  blood  of  the  innocent,  —  so  I  empty 
out  the  council  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  in  this  place,  and  I  make 
them  fall  by  the  sword  before  their  enemies,  and  by  the  hand  of 
those  who  seek  their  life,  and  give  their  corpses  for  food  to  the  fowls 


ZECHARIAH  Chaf.  Jl.  185 

of  heaven  and  the  beasts  of  the  earth.  —  So  will  1  break  this  people 
and  this  city,  as  one  breaks  the  vessels  of  a  potter,  which  can  no  more 
be  mended  ;  and  in  Tophet  shall  they  bury,  because  there  is  no  more 
room.  —  Thus  will  1  do  to  this  place  and  its  inhabitants,  and  make 
this  city  like  Tophet.  And  the  houses  of  Jerusalem  and  the  houses 
of  the  kings  of  Judah  shall  be  unclean  as  the  place  Tophet,"  Zech- 
ariah  now  causes  the  base  reward  to  be  thrown  into  the  valley  of  the 
son  of  Hinnom  or  Tophet,  in  general  because  this  was  an  unclean 
place,  but  especially  in  order  to  resume  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah, 
and  show  that  a  second  fulfilment  of  it  was  at  hand,  because  the  di- 
vine penal  justice  which  had  called  forth  the  threatening,  and  its  first 
fulfilment  had  been  provoked  anew,  and  indeed  in  a  still  mofe  fear- 
ful manner.  The  memorial  of  the  wicked  ingratitude  of  the  Jewish 
people,  the  corpus  ddicti,  is  conveyed  to  tlie  same  place,  from  which 
their  former  abominations  had  cried  to  God,  and  provoked  his  ven- 
geance. It  was  there  deposited,  as  it  were  a  new  pledge,  which  the 
people  at  the  appointed  time  must  redeem.  —  That  precisely  the 
possessions  of  the  potter  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom  are  chosen,  is  owing 
to  Jeremiah,  chap.  IS.  Jeremiah,  at  the  command  of  the  Lord, 
there  makes  a  visit  to  the  potter,  who  was  just  then  at  work.  "  And 
the  vessel,  which  he  was  making  out  of  the  clay,  was  marred  under 
his  hands  ;  then  he  made  again  out  of  the  clay  another  vessel,  as  it 
pleased  him."  The  meaning  of  this  symbol  is  then  given,  "  Can  I 
not  therefore  do  to  you  also,  ye  house  of  Israel,  as  this  potter,  saith 
the  Lord  ?  Behold,  as  the  clay  in  the  hand  of  the  potter,  so  are  ye 
in  my  hand.  —  Behold,  I  prepare  for  you  misfortune,  and  entertain 
towards  you  thoughts  of  evil  ;  therefore  return  each  one  from  his 
evil  disposition,  and  amend  your  disposition  and  your  conduct." 
This  truth,  that  the  Lord,  without  acknowledging  them  to  have  any 
claim  upon  him,  could  and  would  reject  his  apostate  people,  if  they 
did  not  repent  in  time,  is  here  anew  rendered  prominent  by  Zech- 
ariah,  when  he  causes  the  poor  reward  to  be  brought  into  the  place 
in  which  Jeremiah  had  originally  uttered  the  threatening;  a  place, 
the  peculiarity  of  which  also,  at  the  time  of  the  prophet,  when  the 
potter  had  again  set  up  his  workshop  there,  was  suited  to  make  it 
an  object  of  sense.  This  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  had  again  resumed 
its  full  power,  as  the  former  apostasy,  which,  in  the  first  instance, 
occasioned  it,  was  but  slight  in  comparison  with  the  present,  the 
wicked  ingratitude  of  the  people  towards  the  Lord,  who  had  himself 
taken  charge  of  his  flock.  —  We  believe  we  have  so  vindicated  our 
VOL.   II.  24 


186  ZECHARIAH  Chah.  11. 

interpretation,  which  justifies  and  completes  what  was  surmised  by 
Grotius,  that  the  examination  of  others  may  appear  more  or  less 
superfluous.  The  most  unfortunate,  though  most  pretending,  is  plain- 
ly that,  which  gives  as  the  sense,  "  to  the  treasury  "  or  "  the  treasu- 
rer," with  an  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  Syriac,  which  translates 
freasure-house,  while  it  is  directly  asserted,  either  with  Kimchi  and 
Theiner,  that  "li'r  is  synonymous  with  "li'lN,  or,  with  Jonathan,  the 
meaning  treasurer  is  given  to  IVV,  or,  with  Jahn  and  Hitzig  (1.  c. 
p.  35),  the  reading  l^l''  is  preferred,  which  will  then  be  synonymous 
with  1Y1X.  This  interpretation  is  inadmissible,  because  even  if  the 
change  of  vowels  be  conceded,  it  understands  the  word  in  a  sense 
in  which  it  never  elsewhere  occurs,  and  is  the  more  suspicious,  the 
more  frequently  the  word  is  found.  It  could  surely  have  been  ad- 
vanced only  by  those  who  overlooic  the  cited  passages  of  Jeremiah. 
For,  that  there  is  a  connexion  between  them  and  the  passage  before 
us,  every  one  who  looks  at  both  must  immediately  perceive,  although 
he  may  not  at  once  discover  the  mode  of  this  connexion ;  and  this 
will  be  the  more  evident  when  he  takes  notice  how  almost  every 
verse  of  this  chapter  stands  related  to  Jeremiah,  and  that,  elsewhere 
also  in  the  same,  traces  of  the  use  of  Jeremiah,  18  and  19,  are  found  ; 
comp.  with  V.  9,  Jer.  18:  21,  19:  9.  It  gives,  however,  no  good 
sense,  or  rather  it  gives  no  sense  at  all.  For  how  could  the  treasury 
of  the  temple  be  spoken  of  in  this  connexion  ?  By  being  received 
into  that,  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  would  rather  be  honored.  —  Ver- 
batim, the  excellency  of  the  price  which  I  have  been  estimated  by 
them,  for  the  excellent  price,  ironically,  at  which  my  person  and  my 
work  have  been  valued  by  them  ;  comp.  Deut.  32  :  6,  "Give  ye  to 
the  Lord  such  a  reward,  ye  foolish,  unwise  people."  —  "  A7id  1  cast 
it  (the  sum  or  the  price)  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  that  it  might 
be  conveyed  from  there  to  the  potter."  It  is  very  obvious,  that  the 
gold  could  not  be  carried  at  the  same  time  into  the  temple  and  to 
the  potter.  For  the  potter  did  not  work  in  the  temple,  nor  even  in 
the  city,  but,  as  we  have  already  seen,  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom. 
It  must,  therefore,  necessarily  be  assumed,  that  the  temple  was  the 
first,  the  potter's  the  second  station  ;  and  this  is  also  plainly  enough 
expressed  by  the  use  of  b^.  before  "IVTH ;  hence  "  to  the  potter,"  for, 
"that  it  might  be  carried  from  there  to  the  potter."  The  ques- 
tion, liowever,  now  arises,  why  the  gold,  which  was  finally  to  remain 
with  the  potter,  was  first  cast  into  the  temple.  Plainly,  because  the 
temple  was  the  place,  where  the  people  appeared  before  the  face  of 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  187 

the  Lord,  the  council-house,  as  it  were,  where  the  magistrates  and 
citizens  transacted  their  affairs  with  one  another.  Here,  therefore, 
must  the  shameful  ingratitude  of  the  people  also  be  cast  upon  them 
by  the  return  of  the  contemptible  reward.  From  there  it  must  then 
be  conveyed  to  the  potter,  because  unlawful  gold  must  not  remain 
in  the  temple;  comp.  Deut.  23  :  19,  Tahn.  Tract.  San/udriu,  {'.  112. 


We  have  hitherto  unfolded  the  sense  of  v.  13  and  14,  without 
reference  to  the  fulfilment.  The  result  is  as  follows.  The  Lord  has 
at  last  once  more  undertaken  the  pastoral  office  over  the  flock 
devoted  to  destruction,  the  unhappy  people,  Israel ;  as  he  again 
relinquishes  it  on  account  of  their  stiff-necked  unbelief,  he  demands 
his  reward ;  they  give  him  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  about  the  yearly 
wages  of  a  common  herdsman.  He  is  not  satisfied  with  this  con- 
temptible reward,  and  casts  it  into  the  temple.  From  there,  as  un- 
clean, it  is  conveyed  to  the  possession  of  the  potter,  where  it  is 
deposited  until  the  day  of  judgment  upon  the  people,  as  a  pledge  of 
the  divine  vengeance.  We  have  learned,  as  the  sense  of  this  figura- 
tive repre.sentation,  that  the  obduracy  of  the  people,  after  the  Lord 
should  have  given  them  up  on  account  of  it,  would  yet  break  forth 
in  one  great  act  of  ingratitude  towards  him,  and  thereby  make 
them  fully  ripe  for  the  judgment. 

The  agreement  of  prophecy  and  fulfilment  is  here  so  striking,  that 
it  would  force  itself  upon  us  although  it  were  indicated  by  no  decla- 
ration of  the  New  Testament.  What  could  the  last  and  most 
fearful  expression  of  ingratitude  towards  the  good  shepherd,  here 
predicted,  be,  other  than  the  murderous  plot  by  which  the  Jews  re- 
warded the  pastoral  fidelity  of  Christ,  and  for  whose  accomplishment 
Judas  was  bribed  ?  But  not  merely  in  general,  in  the  particulars 
also,  we  find  the  most  accurate  agreement  between  history  and 
prophecy.  The  small  reward  of  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  serves  here 
in  the  first  place  only  for  a  figurative  designation  of  the  blackest  in- 
gratitude and  the  highest  contempt  on  the  part  of  the  Jews.  But, 
that,  among  all  small  sums,  precisely  this  only  was  chosen,  which 
afterwards  the  betrayer  Judas  actually  received,  must  still  surprise 
us,  and  cannot  be  without  an  object.  As  in  the  bribing  of  the 
betrayer  Judas,  in   general,  the  blackest  ingratitude  is  obvious,  so 


188  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

are  the  foulest  avarice,  and  the  deepest  contempt  towards  the  Lord, 
manifest  in  the  circumstance,  that  the  priests  allowed  to  Judas, 
when  he  left  to  them  the  determination  of  the  reward  (comp.  Matt. 
26  :  15)  only  the  contemptible  sum  of  thirty  pieces  of  silver.  It  can- 
not with  Paulus  (Comm.  III.  p.  683)  be  replied,  that,  according  to 
Zechariah,  the  thirty  "pieces  of  silver  are  counted  to  the  shepherd, 
not  to  his  betrayer.  For,  in  the  small  reward  which  they  gave  to  the 
betrayer,  their  contempt  towards  the  shepherd  manifests  itself  It 
happened  by  the  arrangement  of  God,  under  whose  secret  influence 
even  the  ungodly  stand,  that  Judas  cast  the  gold  into  the  temple, 
and  that  therefore  their  ingratitude,  as  inwardly  in  Zechariah,  so 
here  outwardly,  is  charged  upon  the  people  by  a  symbolic  action  in 
the  place  where  they  appeared  before  the  face  of  the  Lord.  The 
priests  removed  the  gold  as  unclean  out  of  the  temple,  and  pur- 
chased therewith  a  mean  spot  in  the  same  valley,  which  already  at 
an  earlier  period,  polluted  by  innocent  blood,  had  brought  upon 
Jerusalem  the  vengeance  of  the  Lord,  predicted  by  Jeremiah,  the 
same  spot  where  Jeremiah  once  predicted  to  the  people  their  rejec- 
tion. Here  now  lay  the  price  of  blood,  Tifii)  m/xaTog,  (Matt.  27  :  6,) 
the  reward  for  the  betrayal  of  the  innocent  blood  {aifxa  a&wov,  v.  4), 
from  which  the  field  received  the  name  of  the  field  of  blood  {uyQog 
aY/xmog,  v.  8,  comp.  Act.  1  :  19),  as  a  testimony  against  Israel,  as  a 
pledge  by  which  he  had  bound  himself  to  suffer  the  divine  punish- 
ment, similar  to  the  former,  which  he  must  now  redeem  ;  so  that  the 
threatening,  which  Jeremiah  had  uttered  in  reference  to  this  former 
abomination,  is  now  again  in  full  force.  Chap.  19:4sq.,  "They 
have  made  this  place  full  of  innocent  blood,  —  therefore,  behold, 
days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  they  shall  no  more  call  this  place 
Tophet,  and  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  but  the  valley  of  slaughter." 
We  find  the  same  also,  chap.  7 :  32.  In  accordance  with  what  ap- 
pears from  a  comparison  of  the  account  of  the  New  Testament  with 
Jeremiah  and  Zechariah,  tradition  also  places  the  field  of  blood  in 
the  valley  of  Hinnom.  Comp.  Lightfoot  in  Acta  Ap.,  Opp.  II. 
p.  690.     Pococke  II.  38.     Bachiene  II.  1,  p.  342. 

Still  the  result  so  clearly  furnished  by  a  comparison  of  the  proph- 
ecy and  history  is  confirmed  by  an  express  testimony  of  the  apostle 
Matthew,  chap.  27  :  9.  This  testimony  presents  certain  difficulties, 
which  we  shall  here  examine. 

The  form  of  citation  must  here  first  be  considered,  in  which  the 
prophecy  is    attributed    not   to  Zechariah,   but   to   .Teremiah,  (roVf 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  U.  18& 

inXij^a&r]  to  grj&ev  8ia  "liQEfiiov  xov  TiQoqit'jTOV  kiyovjog.)  We  will 
not  here  give  a  collection  of  the  different  views  respecting  this  prob- 
lem ;  there  is  already  a  sufficiency  of  such  collections,  the  best  of 
which  is  that  by  Mark,  in  the  Ezcrcitationes  Miscell.  (well  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  his  Exercit.  Textuales),  Amsterd.  1690,  p.  314  sq. 
We  hope  that  the  establishment  of  our  own  will  contribute  at  the 
same  time  to  the  refutation  of  the  rest,  and  thus,  making  a  further 
mention  of  them  more  or  less  superfluous,  will  a  little  lighten  the 
already  sufficiently  laden  ship  of  the  exegesis. 

Several  older  interpreters  (Sanctius,  Glassius,  Frischmuth,)  ex- 
press the  opinion,  that  Matthew  cited  a  passage  compounded  out  of 
Jeremiah  and  Zechariah,  under  the  name  of  the  former,  only  as  the 
more  distinguished.  But  the  well  grounded  reply  has  been  made, 
that  then  the  passages  of  Jeremiah,  a  reference  to  which  they 
assume,  must  actually  refer  to  the  event  related  by  Matthew.  They 
were  not  able  to  answer  this  objection,  partly  because  they  did  not 
see  in  what  relation  the  passage  of  Zechariah  stood  to  those  cited 
from  Jeremiah,  partly  because  they  did  not  observe  what  deep 
meaning  Matthew  sought,  in  the  fact  that  the  potter's  field  was  pur- 
chased with  the  price  of  blood,  which,  of  all  the  interpreters,  Grotius 
alone  perceived,  ("  Cum  autem  hoc  dictum  Jeremim  per  Sack,  rcpeti- 
tmn  hie  recitat  Mat.,  simul  osteridit  tacite,  eas  posnas  imminere  Ju- 
dceis,  quas  iidem  prophetce  ulint  sui  temporis  hominibus  prcBdixerant.") 
This  objection  is  entirely  removed  by  what  has  already  been  re- 
marked. We  have  shown  that  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah,  as  to  its 
principal  parts,  is  only  a  resumption  of  that  of  Jeremiah  ;  that  he  an- 
nounces a  second  fulfilment  of  it,  which  stands  in  a  connexion  with 
it  by  no  means  accidental,  but  necessary,  because  it  rests  on  the 
idea  of  the  divine  penal  justice,  which  must  call  forth  a  new  fulfil- 
r^ent  of  the  prophecy  as  soon  as  it  shall  have  been  again  provoked. 

Matthew  might  indeed  have  cited  both  prophets.  But  such  pro- 
lixity in  citation  is  entirely  contrary  to  the  custom  of  the  authors  of 
the  New  Testament,  which  may  be  explained  by  a  twofold  reason. 
They  presuppose  their  readers  to  possess  an  accurate  knowledge  of 
Scripture,  and  the  human  instrument  was  kept  far  behind  the  divine 
author,  the  Spirit  of  God  and  of  Christ,  who  spake  in  all  the  propji- 
ets  in  the  same  manner.  Very  frequently,  therefore,  and  indeed 
almost  always,  the  human  author  is  not  mentioned  at  all ;  they  con- 
tent themselves  with  the  forms  of  citation  :  r;  ygacpT]  Isyet,  xa&ag 
f'ari  ysy^n^filrov,  yiynnnxai  yut),  y.n>9(oc  liyti  x6  nvBV^n  to  oiyior,  xn&o)c 


190  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

z~mtv  o  &Edg.  k.  t.  X.  Not  un frequently  two  or  three  passages  of 
different  authors  are  combined  in  one,  and  yet  only  a  single  author 
is  mentioned.  The  closest  analogy  with  that  before  us  is  presented 
by  Mark  1  :  2,  3  :  'Slg  yiygamai  iv'Hadioi  tw  ngocp^jTi]'  "idov,  syoj 
anoaTsXla  xov  uyysXov  fiov  ngo  nQoawnov  aov,  o<,'  xctxaaa^vdasi,  xriv 
o86v  aov.  (fwv))  ^oavtog  x.  t.  A.  Here,  under  the  name  of  Isaiah, 
two  prophecies  of  Malachi  and  Isaiah,  are  cited,  of  which  moreover 
the  former  precedes.  Isaiah  was  the  more  celebrated  prophet ;  it 
was  so  usual  to  consider  ihe  minor  prophets  combined  in  one  col- 
lection as  a  whole,  that  an  individual  of  them  is  very  rarely  men- 
tioned by  name  ;  comp.  e.  g.  Matt.  21  :  5,  with  Isaiah  62  :  11,  and 
Zech.  9:  9,  Matt.  21  :  13,  with  Isaiah  56:  7,  Jer.  7:  11,  Rom. 
9  :  27,  1  Pet.  2  :  6  sq. 

Had  Matthew  designed  to  awaken  attention  merely  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah,  he  would  have  contented  him- 
self with  a  general  form  of  citation.  This  appears  from  the  analogy 
of  all  other  citations  out  of  this  prophet,  in  none  of  which  is  he  men- 
tioned by  name.  So,  John  19  :  37,  the  passage,  chap.  12 :  10,  is 
cited  merely  with  the  words,  zal  ndliv  stequ  ygacprj  Xiyu.  John 
12  :  14,  the  passage,  chap.  9  :  9,  by  xa^^w?  ion  yeygafifisvov.  Matt. 
26  :  31,  the  passage,  chap.  13  :  7,  with  the  words  yEyganjcct,  yag, 
(comp.  Mark  14  :  27.)  Matt.  21  :  45,  the  passage,  chap.  9:9,  by 
TO  grj&h'  dia  xov  Ttgofprjxov,  where  the  article  shows,  that  Matthew 
presupposed  Zechariah  to  be  well  known  to  all  his  readers.  While, 
however,  the  mention  of  Zechariah  might  appear  to  him  as  unneces- 
sary, it  was  otherwise  with  Jeremiah.  The  fact,  that  this  proph- 
ecy was  realized  in  the  event  before  him,  and  how  far  it  was  so,  was 
not  so  obvious  as  to  render  superfluous  a  hint  requiring  further  in- 
vestigation. And  yet,  without  this  insight,  the  sense  of  the  prophecy 
of  Zechariah  must  remain  in  the  highest  degree  obscure,  and  its 
fulfilment  in  essential  points  misapprehended. 

The  result  which  we  have  gained  is  not  unimportant.  It  appears 
that  the  apostle  precisely  in  the  passage,  which  the  new  critics 
cite  as  a  certain  proof  of  the  proposition,  that  the  authors  of  the 
New  Testament  were  not  free  from  error,  manifests  a  deeper  insight 
into  the  sense  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecy,  than  all  these  critics 
taken  together,  no  one  of  whom  has  perceived,  that  we  can  just  as 
little  interpret  the  passage  of  Zechariah,  without  the  aid  of  Jere- 
miah, as  we  can,  without  that  of  Daniel,  determine  what  the.  Lord 
intended  by  the  ^biXvy^m  xijg  igi^fiwasoig.     Indeed,  the  assumption  of 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  191 

an  error  is  the  most  convenient  for  those  who  abhor  labor ;  and  at  the 
same  time  affords  an  advantage  not  to  be  despised  against  the  literal 
interpreter  ;  but  such  proceedings  cannot  for  ever  hide  the  truth,  as 
certainly  as  it  is  not  the  will  of  the  Lord,  that  one  iota  of  his  word 
should  fail.  Would  that  men,  if  they  cannot  immediately  find  out  a 
probable  solution,  would  imitate  the  modesty  of  Frischmuth,  who, 
in  his  treatise  De  XXX.  Argenteis  in  the  Thesanr.  Theol.  Phil.  I. 
p.  1041,  after  a  citation  of  a  passage  of  the  Jewish  grammarian  Epho- 
daeus,  says  :  "  Onmibus  modis  eo  laborandiim  est,  ut  h'regularitatis 
demus  rationem.  Ubi  vero  earn  dare  nequimus,  satis  est  nos  novisse 
hoc Jieri propter  defectum  nostrum,  minime  vero,  quod  in  libris  divi- 
nis  anomalia  queedam  sit.  Id  vero  ut  dicamus,  absit."  Although 
fully  sensible  of  the  inadequacy  of  his  own  explanation,  he  proceeds  : 
"  Quam  modestiam  si  ct  nos  Christiani  imitari  velimus,  difficultatem 
declinare  facile  fuerit  dicendo,  si  vel  maxime  haud  ita  constet,  quo- 
modo  Jeremias  legatur,  idea  tamen  necdum  sequi,  scripturam  corrup- 
tam  esse,  vel  Evangelistatn  esse  lapsum.  Sic  satius  fuerit  aliquam 
ignorantiam  profiteri  nostram,  quam  temere  aliquam  falsationem 
admittere." 

It  now  remains  to  show,  that  the  citation  of  Matthew  perfectly 
coincides  with  this  passage  in  sense,  if  not  in  words.  We  must 
here  in  the  first  place  endeavour  to  settle  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
Kal  Ela^ov  ra  iqicihovtu  u^yvQiu,  Ti}v  Ti^n]v  lov  zixifirj^srov,  ov  hi^r^- 
aavio  tino  viav  "lagar]}..  We  translate,  "  they  received  the  price 
of  him  who  was  valued,  for  which  they  had  valued  him,  on  the 
part  of  the  sons  of  Israel."  We  do  not  supply  before  ano  rwv  v.  "l. 
the  pronoun  jivig,  which  Fritzsche  properly  rejects,  without  how- 
ever being  justified  in  his  extremely  forced  interpretation.  We 
rather  apply  here  the  Hebrew  and  Arimeean  usage,  according  to 
which  the  indefinite  third  person,  which  then  supplies  the  place  of 
the  passive,  is  designated  by  the  third  person  of  the  plural  ;  comp. 
the  examples  in  Ges.  Lchrg.  p.  798.  Instances  out  of  the  New 
Testament  are  such  passages  as  Luke  12:  20:  tijj'  ii)vxriv  aov  anai- 
Tomnv  ano  aov,  "they  demand,"  for,  "one  demands,"  and  this  then 
for  "  it  is  demanded."  The  expression  ano  vlah  ' Tagarjl,  "  on  the 
part  of  the  sons  of  Israel,"  (comp.  Winer  p.  31S,  James  1  ■.  13,  lino 
S^sov  nHfjci^ofiai,  "  I  am  tempted  of  God,")  corresponds  to  Dn'Si^p  in 
Zechariah.  The  noun  is  used  by  Matthew  instead  of  the  pronoun, 
in  order  to  awaken  attention  to  the  meanness  of  the  valuation.  This 
was  done,  not  indeed  by  heathen,  but  by  the  covenant  people  them- 


192  ZECHARIAH  Chai-.  It. 

selves,  who  had  received  such  numberless  proofs  of  the  love  and 
mercy  of  the  Lord.  The  apparent  deviation,  that  in  Matthew  the 
receiving  of  the  pieces  of  silver  and  the  casting  of  them  into  the  field 
of  the  potter  are  attributed  to  the  leaders  of  the  Jews,  in  Zechariah 
on  the  contrary,  to  the  shepherd,  Matthew  removes  by  subjoining  at 
the  close  the  words,  yia&a.  ovvhaU  f-ioi  xvQiog,  corresponding  to  "^PX"! 
'Sn  nin:  in  Zechariah.  By  these  words  he  indicates,  that  he  re- 
gards the  leaders  of  the  people,  not  as  acting  independently,  but 
only  as  instruments,  by  which  the  Lord  accomplishes  his  purposes, 
so  that  nothing  is  wanting  to  make  the  coincidence  complete. 

V.  14.  "  Then  I  broke  my  second  staff,  the  Allied,  to  abolish  the 
brotherhood  between  Judah  and  Israel.''  Corap.  v.  7.  We  have 
already  had  occasion  often  to  remark,  that  in  the  representation  of 
future  things  the  images  are  borrowed  from  the  past.  Thus,  e.  g. 
chap.  10:  11,  the  future  deliverance  is  described  as  a  passage 
through  the  Red  Sea  ;  so  likewise  as  a  deliverance  from  the  yoke  of 
the  Assyrians  and  Egyptians,  who  had  long  been  deprived  of  their 
power  at  the  time  of  Zechariah.  In  such  cases,  the  usual  blending 
of  image  and  reality  properly  lies  at  the  foundation.  Instead  of  say- 
ing, e.  g.  "  I  will  deliver  Israel  as  gloriously  as  before,  when  I  led 
them  through  the  Red  Sea;  "  the  prophet  says  directly,  "  The  Lord 
will  lead  them  anew  through  the  Red  Sea."  Such  passages  would  not 
have  been  so  grossly  misunderstood,  if  more  regard  had  been  paid  to 
the  analogy  of  poetry  in  general,  and  particularly  that  of  Christian 
hymns.  When  e.  g.  the  singer  says,  "  Only  briskly  come  in,  it  will 
not  be  so  deep,  the  Red  Sea  will  already  give  place  to  thee,"  who 
can  really  suppose,  that  he  is  on  the  point  of  passing  the  Red  Sea? 
or  when  it  is  said,  "  Egypt,  good  night,"  that  he  has  prepared  him- 
self for  a  journey  from  Egypt  to  Canaan  1  Thus  also  is  it  here. 
The  most  melancholy  dissension  of  the  past  was  that  between  Judah 
and  Israel,  which  caused  the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms,  and, 
continuing  afterwards,  consumed  the  energies,  which  fitted  the  peo- 
ple to  withstand  their  heathen  foes.  The  prophet  now  wishes  to 
say,  that,  after  the  Lord  shall  have  forsaken  the  people,  the  most 
destructive  internal  discord  will  arise  among  them,  even  as  destruc- 
tive as  the  former  contention  between  Judah  and  Israel.  This  he 
expresses  by  saying  directly,  "  The  Lord  will  abolish  the  brotherhood 
between  Judah  and  Israel,"  altogether  the  same  as  his  previous 
declaration,  "They  will  eat  the  flesh  one  of  another."  The  fulfil- 
ment took  place,  as  has  been  already  remarked,  at  the  time  of  the 


t^. 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11.  193 

Roman  invasion,  when  the  Jews  were  destroyed  by  the  rage  of 
parties  against  each  other.  This  is  so  plain,  that  it  forced  itself  even 
upon  Abarbanel  :  "  Quia  tempore  excidii  latrones  aucti  sunt,  et  cum 
amove  etiam  fraternitas  est  imminuta  in  tribu  Judah,  et  insuper  inter 
hos  et  Jilios  Israelis,  sacerdotes  et  Levitas,  qui  apud  ipsos  erant, 
idcirco  hie  ait,  ad  irritum  faciendum  fraternitatem  inter  Judam  et 
Israelem." 

V.  15.  "  Then  said  the  Lord  to  me,  take  to  thee  again  the  vessels 
of  a  foolish  shepherd.^'  Calvin  :  "  Hie  docct  propheta,  ubi  deus 
ahjecerit  curam  populi,  fore  aliquam  vanam  speciem  regiminis,  sed 
ex  qua  facile  colligi  possit,  deum  non  agere  amplius  officium  pastoris. 
—  Jam  se  abdicaverat  deus  munere  pastoris,  sed  postea  prcsfecit  et 
lupos  et  fures  et  latrones  pastorum  loco,  cum  scil.  vellet  exeqiii  hor- 
ribile  suum  judicium  contra  Judmos."  Hi;^,  again  i.  q.  "  while  thou 
proceedest  to  symbolize  the  fortunes  of  the  people."  It  is  obvious, 
that  by  the  foolish  shepherd  must  be  understood  not  an  individual, 
but  the  whole  body  of  the  wicked  rulers,  who,  after  the  rejection  of 
the  good  shepherd,  destroyed  the  people.  We  are  not,  however,  to 
refer  it  to  foreign,  but  domestic  leaders.  For  only  against  the  latter 
could  the  divine  punishment  be  threatened,  as  is  done  v.  17,  because 
they  were  at  the  same  time  instruments  of  the  punishment  and  par- 
takers of  it,  as  well  as  of  the  horrible  apostasy  ;  and  indeed  of  this 
they  were  the  chief  authors,  while  the  former,  according  to  v.  5, 
were  not  guilty.  That  there,  in  like  manner,  the  domestic  rulers 
under  the  name  of  the  shepherds,  are  contrasted  with  the  foreign, 
the  buyers  and  sellers,  we  have  already  seen.  The  truth  was  per- 
ceived by  Abend  an  a  in  the  Spicileg.  to  the  Miclal  Jophi  of  Sal.  Ben 
Melech,  only  that  his  interpretation  is  too  limited  :  "  Per  pasfores 
nihili,  intelliguntur  principes  latronum^  Jochanan,  Simeon,  et  Elie- 
zer."  The  designation  of  the  shepherd,  as  foolish,  instead  of  un- 
godly, points  out  how  the  leaders  of  the  people,  blinded  by  the 
divine  penal  justice,  will  not  perceive  that  they  destroy  themselves 
when  they  rage  against  the  people.  This  view  of  ungodliness,  the 
foolishness  connected  with  it,  is  often  exhibited,  comp.  e.  g.  Jer. 
4:  22,  "For  my  people  is  foolish,  they  have  not  known  me;  they 
are  sottish  children,  and  theyhave  no  understanding;  they  are  wise 
to  do  evil,  but  to  do  good  they  have  no  knowledge."  —  By  the  im- 
plement of  the  foolish  shepherd,  more  accurately  determined  by  the 
antithesis  with  what  precedes,  may  be  understood  simply  the  shep- 
herd's staff,  or,  at  the  same  time  also,  his  other  implements.  We  may 

VOL.   II.  25 


194  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  11. 

suppose  that  the  implement  of  the  shepherd  consisted  of  a  strong 
staff,  armed  with  iron,  wherewith  he  wounded  the  sheep,  while  the 
goo-d  shepherd  kept  them  in  order  with  the  soft  blows  of  a  thin  staff; 
we  can  at  the  same  time  imagine  a  perforated  shepherd's-pouch, 
which  contained  nothing  which  was  useful  to  the  sheep  and  the 
shepherd,  &c.  In  any  event,  the  opinion  of  Bochart  {Hieroz.  I. 
455)  is  to  be  rejected,  that  the  bad  shepherd  was  not  distinguished 
from  the  good  by  any  thing  external,  but  only  by  his  actions. 

V.  16.  "  For  behold,  I  raise  up  a  shepherd  in  the  land,  he  will 
not  visit  that  which  is  perishing,  not  seek  that  which  has  wandered, 
not  heal  that  which  is  wounded,  not  nourish  the  feeble,  and  the  jlesh 
of  the  fat  ones  he  toill  eat,  and  divide  their  hoofs."  Here  also  the 
prophet  has  several  passages  of  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah  in  view. 
Comp.  Ezek.  34 :  3,  4,  "  The  diseased  have  ye  not  strengthened, 
neither  have  ye  healed  that  which  was  sick,  neither  have  ye  bound 
up  that  which  was  broken,  neither  have  ye  brought  again  that 
which  was  driven  away,  neither  have  ye  sought  that  which  was 
lost."  Jer.  23  :  1,  2,  "  Woe  be  unto  the  pastors  that  destroy  and 
scatter  the  sheep  of  my  pasture  !  saith  the  Lord.  Therefore,  thus 
saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  against  the  pastors  that  feed  my  people ; 
Ye  have  scattered  my  flock,  and  driven  them  away,  and  have  not 
visited  them."  The  reference  to  these  passages  is  not  merely  ex- 
ternal, as  in  general  we  must  regard  the  dependence  of  Zechariah 
on  the  older  prophets,  on  account  of  the  great  power  and  originality 
of  his  genius,  as  chiefly  voluntary.  By  a  righteous  divine  judgment, 
the  people  had  been  punished  before  the  exile  by  bad  rulers;  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel  had  promised  them  deliverance  from  these;  and 
this  had  actually  happened  after  the  exile,  particularly  at  the  lime 
of  Zechariah,  when  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  guided  the  people  in  a 
truly  paternal  mannef.  Zechariah  however  announces,  that  in 
future  the  same  cause  would  produce  the  same  effect,  and  indeed 
in  a  higher  degree.  —  O  at  the  beginning  is  explained  by  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  the  reason  why  a  symbolical  action  was  performed, 
is  the  same  which  the  action  signified.  The  particulars  of  the 
verse  are  admirably  illustrated  by  Bochart,  Hieroz.  I.  p.  445.  iJ^iH, 
not  with  the  Hebrew  interpreters  and  Calvin,  ("  Oves  longo  usu 
sese  continent,  ita  ut  non  aberrent  ab  aliis,  sed  agni  magis  lascivi- 
unt,  et  facile  hue  et  illuc  disperguntur,")  "  tlie  young,"  —  1J.'J  never 
occurs  of  animals,  —  but  "  the  dispersed."  In  the  sense  to  shake, 
the  verb  occurs,  Neh.  5  :  13;  in  the  Talmud  it  occurs  especially  of 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  13.  196 

the  wandering  flocks  of  sheep,  comp.  Buxtorf,  s.  v.  In  the  Arabic 
5XAJI,  according  to  Gigg. :  De  viro,  instabilis,  sedem  miitans.  — 
^3^y.  x'7  n^i'jn,  after  Michaelis,  Rosenmiiller  explains  by,  "  Qui 
restitant  prcc  lassltudine  et  morho,  non  poi'tahii."  But  the  verb 
S^dSj  never  means  to  carry,  but  always  to  sustain  and  nourish. 
Others,  '*  That  which  stands  upright  and  firm,  he  will  not  nourish." 
Vulg.  :  "  Id  quod  stat  non  cnutritt."  Bochart :  "  Stans  opponiiur 
jaccnti  et  ex  morbo  decumbenti.  Nam  ut  covfractis  et  cBgris  medcla 
opus  est,  sic  cibo  et  alimentis  stantibus  et  valentibus,  quo  bona  ilia 
habitudo  conservetur."  It  is  better,  however,  as  appears  from  the 
parallel  passages  of  Ezekiel,  to  combine  the  two  interpretations  ; 
"  That  which  continues  to  stand,  and  that  which,  from  hunger  and 
feebleness,- cannot  move  from  its  place,  (to  this  sense  we  are  led  by 
Niphal,  which  designates  suffering,)  he  will  not  provide  for,  to 
strengthen  it  by  food  and  care."  The  expression,  "  he  will  divide 
their  hoofs,"  does  not  indicate,  as  most  interpreters  suppose,  the 
extreme  cruelty,  but  the  extreme  greediness  of  the  shepherd,  which 
has  indeed,  for  its  attendant,  cruelty  against  his  sheep  ;  it  is  a  climax 
of,  **  he  will  eat,"  &c.  He  will  even  break  the  hoofs  apart,  that  no 
fibre  of  the  flesh  should  be  lost. 

V.  17.  "  Wo  to  the  umoorthj  shepherd,  who  forsakes  the  jlock,  a 
sword  comes  upon  his  arm,  and  upon  his  right  eye ;  his  arm  shall  be 
altogether  palsied,  his  right  eye  altogether  blind."  Calvin  :  "  Hoc 
versu  docet  prophetay  etiamsi  deus  mcrito  tain  gravem  vindictam 
infiigat  Judms,  tamen  pastores  ipsos  non  impunc  elapsuros,  et  hoc 
modo  admonet,  etiam  in  relms  illis  tarn  confusis  et  perditis  sibi  tamen 
aliquam  fore  foederis  sui  memoriam."  As  the  object  of  the  punish- 
ment, the  arm  and  the  right  eye  are  mentioned  by  way  of  individu- 
alization, as  the  two  members  of  the  body,  which  the  good  shepherd 
chiefly  employs  for  the  care  and  protection  of  his  flock,  but  which 
the  bad  shepherd  most  shamefully  abuses  to  its  destruction.  The 
arm  the  organ  of  strength,  the  right  eye  the  organ  of  prudence.  An 
apparent  difficulty  here  arises,  from  the  circumstance,  that  two  pun- 
ishments, inconsistent  with  each  other,  are  mentioned  for  each 
member  ;  first,  for  both,  the  sword  ;  then,  for  the  arm,  palsy,  (Calvin  : 
"  Arescet  braclmim,  h.  e.  vigor  ejus  ita  drfluet,  ut  sit  quasi  lignum 
putridum")  ;  for  the  eye,  dimness.  But  on  a  closer  examination  this 
difficulty  vanishes.  The  particular  punishments  serve  here  only  to 
individualize  the  idea  of  punishment  in  general,  and  the  prophet 
combines  several,  in  order  to  exhibit  the  greatness  of  the  punish- 


196  ZECHARIAH  12:  1—13:6. 

ment,  and  consequently  the  greatness  also  of  the  crime.  He  could 
do  this  the  more  readily  since  the  shepherd  is  not  an  individual,  but 
a  collective  body.  To  remove  this  difficulty,  two  interpretations 
equally  untenable  have  been  invented.  Jahn  takes  the  2'^^}  in  the 
sense  ariditas,  appealing  to  Deuteronomy  28 :  22,  where,  however, 
this  sense  is  in  like  manner  arbitrarily  assumed.  Rosenmiiller  after 
the  Chaldee,  and  Jarchi,  suppose,  that  the  threatening  of  punish- 
ment commences  with  the  words,  "  His  arm  will  wither,"  and  that 
the  preceding  belongs  to  the  description  of  the  crime  :  "  Dicitur 
hrachium  et  oculus  rnali  pastoris  gladio  insfructus,  quod  aciem  ocu- 
lorum  malo  animo  et  nocendi  cupido  intendit."  Both  suppositions 
however  are  refuted  by  the  comparison  of  two  parallel  passages. 
The  first,  Jer.  50  :35-38,  "  A  sword  upon  the  Chaldeans,  saith  the 
Lord,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Babylon,  and  upon  their  princes, 
and  upon  their  wise  men.  A  drought  upon  their  waters,  that  they 
dry  up."  —  The  second,  below,  chap.  13  :  7,  "  Sword  awake  against 
my  shepherd."  Remarkable  is  the  double  i/od  paragog.  in  the 
verse  before  us,  exactly  as  in  Jer.  22  :  23.  It  is  frequent  only  in 
the  most  ancient  writings,  and  in  the  latest  from  imitation ;  in  the 
intervening  writers,  only  in  rare  examples,  as  Ps.  110  :  4,  Is.  1  :  21  ; 
comp.  Ewald,  p.  376.  Perhaps  also  the  yod  in  ''Six,  v.  15,  can  be 
taken  as  paragogia/m  ;  there  would  then  be  here  a  trace  of  a  deci- 
dedly later  usage,  to  append  the  yod,  originally  an  outward  desig- 
nation of  the  Stat,  constr.,  in  other  cases  also  as  a  mere  paragoge. 
Still  we  may  take  it  with  Gesenius  {Thes.  s.  v.),  as  an  adjective 
ending,  though  to  this  it  is  an  objection,  that  'Six  as  an  adjective 
form  of  S''l^,  as  fool,  and  foolish,  never  occurs  elsewhere,  and  that 
the  twofold  use  of  the  yod  parag.  in  the  verse  before  us  is  in  favor 
of  assuming  it  there  also. 


Chap,   12:  1.  — 13:  6. 

The  mournful  prospect  is  here  again  followed  by  a  joyful  one.  A 
totally  different  scene  presents  itself  to  our  view.  The  people  of  the 
Lord  in  the  conflict  with  all  nations  of  the  earth,  feeble  in  themselves, 
but  strong  in  the  Lord,  everywhere  come  off  victorious,  v.  1-9. 
The  Lord  has  broken  their   hard  heart,  and  given  them  grace  to 


ZECHARIAH  12  .  1.  —  13  :  6.  197 

repent,  so  that,  with  bitter  distress,  they  regret  the  wickedness  which 
they  have  committed  against  him,  v.  10-14.  In  him  they  have 
now  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  chap.  13  :  1,  and  this  produces  an 
upright  striving  after  sanctification,  and  the  avoiding  of  all  ungodli- 
ness, V.  2-6. 

The  interpreters  are  divided  in  reference  to  the  time  of  the  fulfil- 
ment of  this  prophecy,  as  well  as  its  subject.  With  respect  to  the 
former,  several,  at  the  head  of  whom  is  Grotius,  suppose  a  reference 
to  the  times  of  the  Maccabees.  But  this  supposition  is  for  several 
reasons  altogether  untenable.  It  is  contradicted  by  the  relation  to 
the  foregoing  chapter.  The  reception  of  the  people  of  God  here 
described,  stands  in  plain  contrast  with  the  rejection  of  them  there ; 
and,  if  the  latter  belongs  to  the  time  after  the  appearing  of  Christ, 
the  former  cannot  be  placed  in  the  time  before  his  coming.  This 
is  also  confirmed  by  the  comparison  of  chap.  12 :  10.  The  peniten- 
tial and  believing  looking  upon  the  crucified  Messiah  there  predict- 
ed, leads  us  beyond  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  to  that  of  the  Mes- 
siah, with  which  also  the  characteristics  given  at  chap.  13,  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  and  the  general  striving  after  holiness,  taken  by 
themselves,  and  compared  with  the  parallel  passages,  can  alone 
agree.  Lastly,  in  the  former  prophecy,  referring  to  the  times  of  the 
Maccabees,  one  particular  people,  the  Greeks,  are  mentioned  as  hos- 
tile to  the  covenant  people,  chap.  9  :  13  ;  here,  on  the  contrary,  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  appear  as  their  enemies ;  a  sure  proof,  that 
we  must  seek  the  fulfilment  not  in  the  past,  which  presents  nothing 
of  the  sort,  but  in  the  future,  and  that  the  prophecy  is  analogous  to 
those  of  earlier  prophets,  which,  as  Joel  chap.  4,  and  Ezek.  chap. 
3S,  39,  (comp.,  as  respects  the  latter,  however,  the  introduction  to 
chap.  14,)  relate  in  like  manner  to  the  last  great  struggle  against 
the  kingdom  of  God,  to  the  last  great  victory  of  the  Lord  over  his 
enemies.  Notwithstanding  the  untenableness  of  this  view,  it  has 
still  some  foundation  in  truth.  As  in  general  the  chief  events  under 
the  Old  Testament  are  typical  of  those  under  the  New  Testament, 
—  of  which  we  have  one  remarkable  example  in  Zechariah  himself, 
chap.  6  :  9  sq.,  where  the  Jews  dwelling  in  Babylonia,  cut  off  from 
the  sanctuary,  but  still  contributing  to  rebuild  it,  are  represented  as 
a  type  of  the  distant  heathen  nations,  who,  in  the  Messianic  time, 
should  promote  the  building  up  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  as  also  in 
the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  where  the  return  from  the  exile  is  so  con- 
stantly regarded  as  a  type  of  the  future  return  of  the  heathen  nations 


198  ZECHARIAH  12:1.  —  13:  6. 

from  the  captivity  of  sin  and  error,  that  it  is  often  difficult  to  decide 
what  belongs  to  the  type,  and  what  to  the  antitype, — so  also  the 
splendid  deliverance  of  the  people  of  God  from  their  oppressors, 
through  the  Maccabees,  typified  their  future  last  and  great  deliver- 
ance. Consequently  it  was  represented  under  images  borrowed 
from  the  former,  so  that  since  we  are  not  here  aided  by  a  compari- 
son of  the  fulfilment,  it  is  difficult,  and  in  part  impossible  to  distin- 
guish what  belongs  to  the  figurative  drapery,  and  what  to  the 
subject. 

The  other  diversity  relates  to  the  subject  of  the  prophecy.  The 
view  which  considers  the  Christian  church  as  such  is  very  ancient. 
Jerome  designates  it  as  the  general  and  peculiarly  Christian,  in 
opposition  to  the  Jewish.  "  Alii  Judccorum  putant,jam  hcBC  ex  parte 
comphta  a  Zorobabel  usque  ad  Cn.  Pompcjmn,  qui  primus  Roma- 
norum  Judccam  cepit  et  templum,  quam  historiam  scrihit  Josephus. 
Alii  vero,  quando  Hierusalem  fuerit  instaurata  in  fine  mundi  esse 
complenda,  quod  sibi  cum  't]Uifii.iivM  suo,  quern  supra  stultum  pasto- 
rem  legimus,  miserabilis  gens  Judaa  promittit.  —  Alii  autem,  h.  e. 
nos,  qui  Christi  censemur  nomine,  in  ccclesia  usque  ad  finem  mundi 
quotidie  cxpleri  et  ezplenda  memoramus,"  So  also  Cyril,  Mark,  and 
many  others.  But  that  this  interpretation,  in  the  sense  in  which  it 
is  for  the  most  part  delivered,  is  inadmissible,  needs  no  detailed 
proof  drawn  from  the  contents  of  the  prophecy.  Only  the  interpre- 
ters of  the  prophets,  not  the  prophets  themselves,  know  any  thing  of 
a  spiritual  Israel,  in  contradiction  to  a  natural.  This  view  can 
obtain  our  concurrence  only  when  so  modified,  that  the  covenant 
people  here  signify  that  portion  of  Israel,  who  received  the  mani- 
fested Messiah  with  faith,  and  in  whose  bosom  the  heathen  nations 
were  embraced,  instead  of  independently,  and  on  equal  grounds, 
uniting  with  them  in  one  church.  The  confficting  view  will  then 
be,  that  the  subject  of  the  prophecy  is  not  in  general  the  Church  of 
the  New  Covenant,  whose  original  stock  consisted  of  the  first-fruits 
of  Israel,  but  the  church  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  last  ages, 
when  the  whole  people  of  the  Old  Testament,  freed  by  the  divine 
mercy  from  the  judgment  of  obduracy  inflicted  upon  them,  will 
again  be  received  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  form  its  central 
point.  This  last  view,  adopted  among  others  by  Vitringa,  Observv. 
s.  1.  II.  c.  9,  p.  172,  Michaelis,  Dathe,  and  others,  has  so  much  in 
its  favor,  that  its  rejection  can  hardly  be  explained,  except  from  an 
aversion  to  the  opinion  of  a   future  restoration  of  the  whole  people 


ZECH ARI AH  ]  2  .  1 .  — 13  :  ti.  199 

ol'  Israel  to  their  ancient  gracious  relation  to  the  Lord.  In  appear- 
ance, there  is  indeed  much  against  this;  but  we  must  .not  therefore 
be  led  to  set  aside,  by  a  forced  interpretation,  the  plain  declarations 
of  Scripture,  which  teach  it,  not  merely  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
also  of  the  New  Testament,  not  merely  of  the  apostles,  particularly 
of  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  but  also  of  the  Lord  himself, 
(comp.  Matt.  23  :  39  :  ultyio  yug  v/ilv '  ov  /j.ij  (jls  i'dijTE  utiuqti,  i'cog  av 
nn7jT£  •  Evloyi]nivoq  o  tg^of^i^os  ^f  ovof^urt  j(vqiov.)  The  principle 
proof  is  found  in  chap.  12:  10  sq.  According  to  this  passage,  those 
who  now  experience  the  powerful  help  of  the  Lord  are  the  same 
who  have  formerly  put  him  to  death ;  with  the  former  national  guilt, 
as  it  had  been  represented,  chap.  11,  and  the  consequent  punish- 
ment, the  national  tnourning  on  account  of  it,  is  here  contrasted 
wi'th  the  strongest  expressions  of  its  universality,  which  excludes 
every  reference  to  those  individual  Israelites,  who,  immediately  after 
the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord,  smote  upon  their  breasts. 

We  must  here  still  direct  attention  to  the  accurate  agreement 
between  the  first  and  second  part  of  Zechariah,  which  has  been 
already  intimated.  Chap.  1-4,  exactly  corresponds  with  chap. 
9  and  10.  Both  represent  the  blessings,  which  should  be  conferred 
upon  the  believing  part  of  the  covenant  people,  until  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Messiah,  chiefly  however  through  that  event.  Chap.  5 
corresponds  with  chap.  11.  Both  represent  the  divine  judgments, 
which  should  come  upon  the  unbelieving  and  ungodly  part  of  the 
covenant  people,  after  their  ungodliness  had  most  signally  manifest- 
ed itself  in  the  rejection  of  the  Messiah.  Chap.  6  :  1-8,  describes 
briefly  what  is  more  fully  detailed  in  the  prophecy  before  us,  and  in 
chap.  14,  God's  protection  of  Israel,  and  the  punishment  of  their 
ungodly  enemies,  when  they  have  again  become  the  people  of  God. 
What  a  decisive  ground  for  the  genuineness  of  Zechariah  this  re- 
markable parallelism  furnishes,  is  obvious. 


V.  1.  "  The  burden  of  the  tcord  of  the  Lo?-d  upon  Israel.  Saith 
the  Lord,  who  stretches  out  the  heavens,  and  establishes  the  earth, 
and  forms  the  spirit  of  man  within  him."  —  The  superscription  of 
this  prophecy  has  been  violently  misinterpreted.  The  usual  inter- 
pretation is  that  of  Cocceius  :  "  Prolatio  verbi  JehovcB  de  Israele." 


200  ZECHARIAH  12:  1.-13:6. 

But  the  following  reasons  may  be  urged  against  this.  1.  We  have 
already  seen  (p.  77  sqq.),  that  XB'n  never  signifies  declaration,  but 
always  burden,  and  occurs  only  in  the  superscription  of  prophecies 
announcing  adversity,  and  in  indeed  in  such  a  manner,  that  the 
proper  name  standing  therewith  in  the  stat.  const.,  or  connected  with 
it  by  the  prepositions  3  or  S;^,  designates  the  object  of  the  threaten- 
ing prophecy,  or  of  the  judgments  threatened.  It  is  therefore  en- 
tirely arbitrary,  when  NK'n  is  taken  here,  in  this  single  passage,  in  the 
sense  prophecy,  and  also  when  h])_  is  taken  in  the  sense  de,  especial- 
ly as  it  immediately  occurs,  v.  2,  twice  as  a  designation  of  a  bur- 
densome calamity.  2.  Israel  cannot  here  be  a  designation  of  the 
covenant  people.  For  in  the  whole  prophecy  which  follows,  it  is 
plain,  that  this  designation  is  diligently  avoided.  The  discourse, 
throughout,  is  only  of  Jerusalem  and  Judah.  This  plainly  indicates, 
not  the  identity  of  Israel  and  the  covenant  people,  but  a  difference 
between  them.  Another  explanation,  that  of  Mark,  "  a  burden  of  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  in  or  for  Israel,"  and,  as  it  appears,  that  of  Riickert 
also,  who  translates,  "  burden  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  in  Israel," 
removes,  of  the  abovementioned  difficulties,  only  that  which  con- 
cerns the  import  of  the  word  NE^n,  while  it  is  liable  to  others  at  least 
equally  great,  inasmuch  as,  the  meaning  burden  being  assumed,  the 
separation  of  "^i^  from  N*"fn  is  extremely  forced,  and  the  explanation, 
"  a  prophecy  of  the  Lord  in  Israel  which  burdens  his  enemies,"  is 
certainly  in  the  highest  degree  unnatural.  It  only  remains,  there- 
fore, especially  when  we  compare  the  entirely  analogous  superscrip- 
tion, chap.  9:1,  as  well  as  the  almost  verbally  similar  one,  Mai. 
3:1,  to  adopt  the  supposition,  that  Israel  is  here  the  object  of  the 
threatening  prophecy.  Hence  it  follows,  that  Israel  cannot  be  a 
designation  of  the  covenant  people ;  since  for  them  the  prophecy 
is  not  of  a  threatening,  but  consoling  character.  Of  all  the  inter- 
preters only  Ribera,  as  far  as  we  know,  perceived  the  truth :  "  Israel 
signijicare  puto  Judceas  {?),  inimicos  ecclesice,  et  ceteros  ejus  perseeu- 
tores."  The  enemies  of  the  kingdom  of  God  are  certainly  those 
whose  overthrow  is  predicted  in  the  prophecy  itself,  they  must  there- 
fore be  those  also  whose  overthrow  is  predicted  in  the  superscrip- 
tion. The  ground  of  this  designation,  which  at  first  sight  appears 
strange,  was  twofold.  1.  The  etymology  of  the  name.  This  was 
very  significant  in  reference  to  the  object  of  Zechariah.  Israel 
signifies  God's  wrestler,  he  who  has  wrestled,  or  still  does  wrestle 
with  God,  comp.  Gen.  32  :  29,  Hos.  12  :  4,  where,  in  allusion  to 


ZECHARIAH  12:  1.-13:6.  201 

the  two  names  Jacob  and  Israel,  it  is  said,  ijin:?=i  rnx-Jiitj  3pji;  jeill 
mnSx"n.?<  "n-yi;.  2.  The  relation  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  to  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  was  a  type  of  the  future  relation  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  to  its  enemies.  The  kingdom  of  Israel,  by  the  worship  of 
images  and  idols,  had  been  guilty  of  an  apostasy  from  God,  which 
deserved  to  be  punished,  and  was  constantly  endeavouring,  partly 
alone,  partly  in  alliance  with  the  heathenish  Syrians,  to  overthrow 
Judah,  the  tribe  which  the  Lord  had  chosen,  and  where  he  had 
built  his  sanctuary,  (comp.  Ps.  78:  10,  11,  67,  68.)  Their  later 
exile  was  the  righteous  punishment  of  this  hostility  against  God  and 
his  kingdom,  comp.  2  Kings  17,  Is.  7  :  7,  8:6,  9:7  sq.  That  the 
prophet  in  the  choice  of  the  name  Israel  h^d  in  view,  besides  the 
etymology,  this  allusion  also,  appears  from  his  employing  Judah  and 
Jerusalem  throughout  the  prophecy,  as  a  designation  of  the  covenant 
people,  while  elsewhere  he  frequently  mentions  Judah  and  Israel  or 
Ephraim  after  one  another.  —  The  predicates  attached  to  the  name 
of  God,  as  is  very  frequently  the  case  in  the  older  prophets,  particu- 
larly in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  serve  to  suppress  the  doubt  of  the 
fulfilment  of  the  promise  arising  from  present  appearances,  by  point- 
ing to  the  omnipotence  of  its  author.  Theodoret :  Ovx  tyw,  qirjolv. 
6  iTQOcpi)ir]c;,  tavTU  ngog  Vfiug  dii^sQ/Ofiai,  «AA'  o  jovds  tov  navio; 
noiTjTVii  y.al  Si^jniovgyog,  o  tn  vvv  iv  xaig  vi]dvai  t«  acjfiara  dianXaTzav, 
Kcd  ipv^as  avv  avxolq  dtj/iiiovgysia&ui  xeXevav,  ovzog  St,"  ffiov  cp&fyytxai. 
Still  better  Calvin  :  "  Ubi  de  re  creditu  difficili  ogitur,  nisi  occurrat 
7iobis  immensa  dei  putentia,friget,  quidquid  nobis  promittitur.  Deus 
ergo,  ut  jidem  suis  promissionibus  acqiiirat,  oculos  nostras  in  ccelum 
attollit,  ct  jubet  hoc  mirabile  opijicium  diligenter  aspicere  ;  deinde 
convertit  nos  ad  terram,  ubi  etiam  incBslimabilis  ejus  virtus  apparel. 
Tertio  revocat  nos  ad  considerationem  propritB  naturce."  What  is 
here  indirectly,  is  directly,  chap.  8  :  6,  expressed  in  the  words  :  "  If 
it  shall  be  wonderful  in  the  eyes  of  the  remnant  of  this  people  in 
those  days,  will  it  therefore  also  be  wonderful  in  my  eyes?  saith  the 
Lord  Almighty."  This  introductory  declaration  should  have  been 
more  carefully  considered  by  those  interpreters,  who  have  mistaken 
the  true  explanation,  because  their  eye  was  fixed  on  the  visible  ap- 
pearance. The  participles  ntpj  and  ID^  are  not,  as  several  inter- 
preters suppose,  to  be  referred  exclusively  to  the  past.  In  opposi- 
tion to  the  cheerless  view,  according  to  which  the  works  of  God, 
after  they  have  been  once  created,  stand  related  to  him  as  a  house 
to  its  builder,  their  preservation  is  in  a  certain  respect  always  re- 
voL.  n.  26 


202  ZECPIARIAH  12  :  1 .  —  13  :  6. 

garded  in  Scripture  as  a  continued  creation.  God  daily  stretches 
out  the  heavens  anew,  daily  lays  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  which, 
if  not  restrained  by  his  power,  would  wander  from  its  course  and 
be  tihattered  in  pieces.  The  last  predicate  also  refers  not  merely  to 
the  original  creation  of  the  human  soul,  but  at  the  same  time  to  the 
continual  creating  and  sustaining  influence  which  God  exerts  upon  it. 
The  formation  of  the  spirit  of  man  is  here  rendered  especially  prom- 
inent among  the  many  works  of  the  Divine  Omnipotence,  because 
this  is  the  ground  of  the  absolute  and  constant  influence  exerted 
upon  it  by  him  who  turns  the  hearts  of  kings  as  the  waterbrooks. 
How  should  not  the  Creator  of  the  spirits  of  all  men,  the  God  of  the 
spirits  of  all  flesh,  as  he  is  called  in  the  same  respect  in  Numbers 
16:  22,  27:  16,  be  able  to  strike  all  the  horsemen  of  the  enemy 
with  madness,  as  it  is  said,  v.  4,  or  to  fill  the  leaders  of  his  people 
according  to  v.  6,  with  sacred  courage  !  In  a  manner  precisely  simi- 
lar is  the  omnipotence  of  God,  Ps.  33  :  15,  founded  on  his  being  the 
Former  of  the  hearts  of  all  men.  The  same  three  predicates,  Is. 
42 :  5,  are  joined  with  one  another.  More  remote  is  the  reference 
which  Calvin  gives  to  the  last  predicate:  "  Scntimtis  nos  vivere; 
corpus  per  se  carebit  omni  motu  et  vigorc,  nisi  intus  animetur :  ani- 
ma,  qvm  corpus  vcgctat,  invisibilis  est.  Qiium  ergo  cjperientia 
nobis  demonstret,  virtuttm  del,  qucB  tamen  nan  est  ocvlis  conspicua, 
cvr  nan  exspectobimus,  qua:  promittit,  ctiomsi  cventus  nobis  in- 
credibilis  videtur,  et  omnes  sensiis  7iostros  excedit  1  "  I3"?p.3  is 
well  explained  by  him  thus  :  "  Quum  dicit  in  medio  ejus,  intelli- 
git  spiritiim  habitare  intus  :  quia  scimns  corpus  nostrum  esse  instep- 
tabernaculi." 

V.  2.  "  Behold  !  I  make  Jerusalem  for  a  threshold  of  shaking  to 
all  nations  round  about,  and  also  upon  Judah  will  it  be,  in  the  siege 
against  Jerusalem."  According  to  the  usual  explanation  the  first 
half  of  this  verse  is  understood  as  predicting  prosperity  for  Jerusa- 
lem, and  translated,  "  Behold,  I  make  Jerusalem  a  basin  or  cup  of 
intoxication  for  all  the  nations  round  about."  The  sense,  according 
to  this  explanation  is  best  unfolded  by  Tarnov  :  "  Ego  earn  disposi- 
turns  sum,  ut  pelvem  soporiferam,  seu  vas  ingens,  ad  quod  cum  omnes 
popnli  sunt  rabido  conatu  accessuri,  et  sitim  cxtincturi  furenter  ac- 
currunt,  suo  mala  degustent,  siqnidem  potio  in  ilia  est  soporifera, 
qua  hausta  gignetur  animi  tunta  perturbatio,  ut  homilies  se  ipsos  et 
sua  perdant,  in  perniciem  suam,  velut  cbrii  mente  capti,  rticntes 
prcBcipites."     The  oldest  authority  for  this  translation  is  the  Chal- 


ZECHARIAH  12  :  1.  —  13  .  6  203 

dee,  which  translates,  "  Poculum,  quod  plenum  est  vino  inehrinnie." 
It  has  been  attempted  to  establish  it  by  appealing  to  several  alleged 
parallel  passages,  where,  in  like  manner,  the  subject  of  discourse  is 
«  cup  of  intoxication,  r}'l];'\ryr\  do,  Is.  51  :  17  -22,  or  toine  of  intoxi- 
cation, n'^jrinn  J".,  Ps.  60  :  5;  though  these  and  all  similar  passages 
are  not  entirely  analogous  to  the  one  before  us,  according  to  the 
abovementioned  interpretation.  Everywhere  else  the  Divine  judg- 
ment is  the  cup  of  intoxication,  which  is  extended  to  the  nations; 
here  it  is  Jerusalem.  This  interpretation  is  liable  to  the  following 
objections.  I.  That  ']0  has  the  meaning  cup,  is  incapable  of  proof, 
and  indeed  improbable,  since  it  does  not  harmonize  with  its  usual 
import,  threshold.  This  supposition  has  been  grounded  especially  on 
Exodus  12  :  22 ;  but  Gousset,  Lex.  s.  v.  has  clearly  shown,  that  -"ID 
there  means  not  basin,  but  threshold.  The  remaining  passages, 
2  Sam.  17  :  23,  I  Kings  7  :  50,  2  Kings  12  :  14,  and  Jer.  52 :  19, 
merely  show,  in  general,  that  there  were  certain  vessels,  which  bore 
the  figurative  names  of  the  thresholds,  niDD,  niiJO,  or  D'3:?.  But 
neither  does  this  name  itself  (which  surely  presupposes  some  sort  of 
resemblance  to  a  threshold)  imply  a  cup,  nor  its  connexion  in  both 
the  passages  of  Kings,  with  knives,  in  Jeremiah  with  tongs  ;  while 
the  contrary  is  rather  implied  by  its  separation  from  the  basins  and 
bowls  in  like  manner  there  mentioned.  2.  That  nSjrin  imports 
intoxication  does  not  justify  us  in  attributing  to  S>n  the  same  mean- 
ing. The  sense  concussion,  according  to  the  import  of  the  verb  in 
Hebrew,  Arabic,  and  Syriac,  is  more  obvious.  3.  The  chief  argu- 
ment, however,  is  furnished  by  the  second  half  of  the  verse.  If  this 
cannot  be  understood  othe;\vise  than  as  threatening,  without  the 
greatest  caprice,  so  must  the  first  necessarily  be,  according  to  this 
interpretation,  not  consoling,  but  threatening,  and  the  more  so  since 
the  threatening  against  Judah  is  connected  with  the  foregoing 
declaration  concerning  Jerusalem  by  DJi.  The  whole  first  verse 
must  be  employed,  as  in  chap.  14,  with  the  description  of  the  dis- 
tress of  the  covenant  people,  and  that  of  the  deliverance  must  be 
subjoined.  We  follow  therefore  without  hesitation  the  translation  of 
the  Seventy,  who  render  ~in~'"]D  by  u?  ngo&vioce  aahvo^ira,  and  re- 
gard as  certainly  correct,  what  Theodoret  remarks  in  explanation  of 
the  words  :  EvaXmxov,  (pr,ai,  xal  ivnaxaybiviaTOv  naai  xolg  t&viai  arco' 
xariJfaTJjtfw  r^vds  rr/V  nohv,  xal  iomvlav  Sula  nqo&VQoig  acclsvofiiioig, 
x«i  Kaxaq>iQHj&uL  ^ilXovaiv,  oiaxs  xovg  noXsf^iovg  xijg  {fiijg  ngovoiug  ytyv 
uyaf^svrjv  OQciirxag  iTtsX&tlv  j<«t  TtoXcoQxrjaai  accl  r«  qpvo^Evcf  ttxfvii^n'  ijia- 


204  ZECHARIAH  12  .  1.  —  13  .  6. 

yaysi-v  xuku.  There  lies  at  the  foundation  the  comparison  of  Jeru- 
salem with  a  building,  which  totters  throughout  as  soon  as  its  thresh- 
old is  shaken.  Thus  in  Is.  6  :  4,  the  bases  of  the  thresholds  tremble; 
in  Amos  9:1,  the  entire  shaking  of  the  Theocracy  is  signified  by  the 
shaking  of  the  thresholds  of  the  temple. —  In  the  designation  of  en- 
emies there  is  a  climax,— -here  all  the  nations  round  about,  v.  3,  first 
all  nations,  afterwards  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  strongest 
designation  is  reserved  until  the  divine  aid  has  been  announced.  In 
the  contrast  with  this,  it  was  no  longer  terrible  to  the  covenant  peo- 
ple and  the  divine  omnipotence  was  thereby  rendered  the  more 
manifest.  — The  second  part  has  ever  been  a  crux  iiiterpretum, 
plainly  because  the  false  interpretation  of  the  first  has  prevented 
them  from  arriving  at  the  truth  here.  According  to  one  of  the  most 
prevalent  interpretations  the  sense  is,  "  Judah  also,  compelled  by  en- 
emies, shall  take  part  in  the  siege  of  Jerusalem."  Thus  the  Chaldee  : 
"  Atque  etiain  illos  domus  Judce,  adducent  popidi  per  manum  violcn- 
torum  in  ohsidionem  adversus  Hierusalem."  Jerome  :  "  Sed  et 
Judas,  obsessa  Hierusalem,  est  captus  a  gcntibus,  et,  in  illarum 
transiens  societatem,  cogetur  obsidere  metropoUn  suam."  Grotius : 
"  Rem  miram  dicit,  fore  ut  etiam  ex  Judaeis  sint,  qui  se  in  Hieros. 
hostiliter  gerant,  quod  factum  iiunquam  antea  fucrat."  The  only 
two  plausible  philological  defences  of  these  interpretations  (those 
which,  with  Dathe,  regard  Sj7  as  superfluous,  are  not  taken  into  con- 
sideration) are  that  of  Michaelis,  whom  Rosenmiiller  follows  :  "  Std 
et  sujJcr  Judam  erit  (Ji.  e.  etiam  Judce,  incumbet,  s.  etiam  Juda  tcnebi- 
tur  vel  cogetur  esse)  in  obsidione,"  &/C.  ;  and  that  of  Kimchi  and  oth- 
ers :  "  Sed  et  super  Judam  erit  {^calix  vertiginis),  cum  cogetur  venire 
in  obsidionem  contra  Hierusalem."  But  it  is  an  objection  common  to 
both,  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  in  what  follows,  of  a  parti- 
cipation of  Judah  in  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  that  Judah  rather 
appears  as  the  ally  of  Jerusalem,  even  as  he  by  whose  victory,  gain- 
ed through  the  help  of  the  Lord,  the  city  should  be  delivered.  The 
defenders  of  these  interpretations  are  obliged  in  the  sequel  to  invent 
a  multitude  of  historical  circumstances  of  which  not  the  smallest 
trace,  but  even  the  opposite,  is  contained  in  the  text.  Nor  is  any 
thing  eflfected  by  appealing  to  chap.  14  :  14,  as  a  conflict  of  Judah 
against  Jerusalem  is  there  mentioned,  only  according  to  a  false 
interpretation,  but,  even  if  this  were  n&t  so,  the  prophecy  must  fur- 
nish its  own  explanation.  This  objection  lies  with  the  more  force 
against  the  explanation  of  Kimchi,  since,  according  to  him,  Judah 


ZECHARIAH  12:  ].— 13:G.  205 

should  experience  a  severe  divine  punishment  on  account,  of  his 
forced  participation  in  the  siege,  while  nevertheless,  in  what  follows, 
nothing  but  prosperity  is  announced  to  him.  Against  the  interpre- 
tation of  Michaelis,  there  is  the  special  objection,  that  his  under- 
standing of  S;*,  though  not  of  itself  to  be  absolutely  rejected,  (comp. 
Ezek.  45:  17,  Ps.  56  :  13,)  is  yet  here  refuted  by  the  manifest  par- 
allelism of  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  which  docs  not  admit  that  hp 
should  be  understood  differently  in  the  two  members.  The  expla- 
nation of  Kimchi  rests  on  an  unfounded  interpretation  of  "^jn  "^D. 
The  correct  one  is  :  "  Also  upon  Judah  will  it  come  in  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem."  The  sense  has  already  been  perceived  by  Luther,  "  It 
will  concern  Judah  also  when  Jerusalem  is  besieged."  Burk  : 
"  Non  agitur  tantian  de  urbe  regia  expvgnanda,  sed  de  iota  gaite 
Judaica  exstirpanda."  Grammar  does  not  require  us  to  supply  with 
Schmid  and  Tarnov  at  n;.r!^  "  each  one  of  them."  The  subject  lies 
rather  indirectly  in  what  precedes,  that  Jerusalem  would  be  to  the 
enemies  a  threshold  of  concussion,  and  in  what  follows,  that  they 
would  besiege  it.  From  this  the  idea  of  adversity,  of  a  hostile  siege, 
may  be  readily  derived,  and  the  more  so  since  the  sentence  is  con- 
nected with  the  foregoing  by  DJ.V  —  The  antithesis  of  Judah  and 
Jerusalem  seems  here  to  be  that  between  the  lower  and  the  more  re- 
spectable portion  of  the  covenant  people,  just  as  v.  8,  in  Jerusalem 
itself  a  similar  antithesis  is  presented  by  the  house  of  David  and  the 
other  inhabitants.  The  type  of  this  relation  was  furnished  by  that 
of  Jerusalem,  the  civil  and  religious  capital  to  the  rest  of  Judah, 
which  looked  up  to  it  with  wonder,  (comp.  e.  g.  Ps.  122,)  in  the  past 
and  present.  The  strictly  literal  understanding  of  this  antithesis, 
which  is  also  found  in  the  first  part,  chap.  I  :  12,  2  :  16,  is  particu- 
larly unsupported  in  Zechariah  on  account  of  his  uniformly  figura- 
tive and  typical  character.  The  antithesis  here  serves  only  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  the  following  annunciation,  that  the  Lord,  in  order 
that  the  aeliverance  might  more  clearly  appear  as  his  work,  would 
interpose  first  for  the  most  feeble  and  helpless  portion  of  the  cove- 
nant people. 

V.  3.  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  the  same  day,  that  I  will  make 
Jerusalem  a.  burdensome  stone  for  all  the  nations ;  all  who  lift  it  up 
shall  bruise  and  cut  themselves  ;  and  there  shall  be  gathered  together 
against  her  all  the  nations  of  the  earth."  (Riickert.)  With  this  verse 
the  prediction  of  prosperity  begins,  with  which  the  additional  ex- 
pression, "  it  shall  come  to  pass  in   this  dav,"  perfectly  coincides. 


206  ZECHARIAH  12:  1.-13:6. 

The  sense  is  aptly  developed  by  Jerome  :  "  Potiam  Hierusalem  cunc- 
tis  gentihiis  quasi  gravlssimum  lapidem  sublevnndum  ;  levabunt  qui- 
dem  earn,  d  pro  inrium  varietate  vastahunt  "  (not  altogether  correct, 
since  Jerusalem  in  this  whole  prophecy  appears  indeed  as  sorely 
pressed,  but  not  as  captured,  comp.  particularly  v.  5,  which  is  dif- 
ferent from  chap.  14,  where  the  help  is  delayed  until  after  the  cap- 
ture), "  Sid  necesse  est,  nt,  dam  kvatur,  in  ipso  nixu  et  elevatione 
ponderis  gravissimus  lapis  scissuram  aliquam  vel  I'asurmn  in  levan- 
tium  corporibus  derelinquat.'^  The  image  of  a  heavy  stone,  which 
inflicts  dislocations  and  bruises  upon  those,  who,  overrating  their 
strength,  raise  it  up,  ("  damnum  non  sentiens  ipse  magnum  damnum 
iis  ajfert,"  Mark,)  is  in  itself  so  plain,  that  there  is  no  occasion  to 
assume,  with  most  interpreters,  a  direct  reference  to  a  gymnastic 
exercise  practised  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Jerome,  according  to 
his  account,  which  has  already  been  too  often  copied.  —  In  the 
words,  and  they  assemble,  &c.,  the  prophet  describes  once  more  in 
the  strongest  language  the  danger,  in  order  that  in  contrast  with  it 
the  deliverance  might  appear  the  more  wonderful,  and  at  the  same 
time  that  the  believers  might  not  be  discouraged.  Calvin  :  "  Ampli- 
ficationem  in  sc  continet  hoc  membrum,  ut  Jideles  jJerstarent  invicta 
constantia  ad  bene  sperandum,  quamins  hostium  multitudine  viderent 
se  obrui." 

V.  4.  "  In  that  day,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  smite  all  horses  with 
fright,  and  their  riders  with  madness  ;  and  upon  the  house  of  Judah 
loill  I  open  mine  eyes,  and  all  horses  of  the  nations  tcill  I  smite  with 
blindness."  Calvin:  "  Intelligit  propheta,  quidquid  robustumfutrit, 
tamen  facile  posse  vinci  divinitus.  —  Scimus  robur  militare  esse  in 
eguis  et  equitibus  :  cquos  autem  dicit  fore  attonitos  :  equites  vera 
ipsos  quasi  correptos  insania,  ut  scil.  se  ipsos  quasi  confidant,  neque 
possint  nocere  ecclesiee.  Confirmat  igitur,  quod  nuper  dixit,  quamvis 
totus  mundus  conspiret  contra  eccle.siam,  tamen  satis  virtutis  esse  in 
Deo,  ut  omnes  impetus  vel  procul  repellat,  vel  conterat.  Et  idea 
stuporcm,  amentiam,  ccccitatem  ponit,  ut  discant  fdelcs  deum  occidtis 
modis  posse  hostes  suos  vel  perdere  vel  profligare.  Quamvis  ergo 
deus  non  pugnet  ezertis  gladiis,  neque  utatur  communi  bellandi  more, 
dicit  tamen  propheta,  instructum  esse  aliis,  mediis  ut  hostes  suos  pros- 
ternat."  The  horsemen  as  the  flower  of  the  hostile  army  are  men- 
tioned also,  chap.  10  :  5.  What  the  smiting  of  the  horsemen  with 
madness  imports,  is  exemplified  2  Kings  6  :  18,  where  the  Lord,  in 
answer  to  the  prayer  of  Elisha,  so  blinds  his  enemies,  that,  instead 


ZECHARIAH  12  ;  1.  —  13  :  6.  207 

of  seizing  him,  they  rush  upon  their  own  destruction.  The  open- 
ing of  the  eyes,  a  designation  of  the  divine  care  ;  God  appeared  to 
have  closed  his  eyes  as  long  as  he  gave  up  his  people  to  affliction. 
The  opening  of  the  eyes  of  God  on  the  house  of  Judah  stands  in 
contrast  with  the  smiting  of  the  enemies'  horses  with  blindness,  and 
is  the  more  appropriate,  since  he  upon  whom  God  opens  his  eyes 
now  sees  clearly  himself,  while  before  he  groped  in  darkness,  comp. 
Is.  59  :  10.  The  house  of  Judah  (not  bare  Judah,  as  in  the  preced- 
ing and  following  context,  where  Judah  stands  in  the  antithesis  with 
Jerusalem,)  seems  here  to  comprehend  the  whole  covenant  people. 
The  house  of  Judah  is  elsewhere  frequently  called  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  in  contrast  with  the  house  or  kingdom  of  Israel  ;  and  that  the 
prophet  here  also  has  this  antithesis  in  view  is  evident  from  the  fore- 
going typical  designation  of  the  enemies  by  Israel. 

V.  5.  "  And  the  princts  of  Judah  say  in  their  hearts  :  Strong  for 
me  are  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  in  the  Lord,  the  Almighty,  their 
God."  Remarkable  here,  as  in  chap.  9:7,  is  the  use  of  the  noun 
^"i4n,  of  princes  and  leaders  of  the  covenant  people.  This  word 
occurs  besides  only  as  a  designation  of  the  Idumean  princes  of 
tribes,  comp.  Gen.  36  :  15  sq.,  Exod.  15:  15,  1  Chron.  1  :  51  sqq. 
Several  lexicographers  cite  indeed  in  favor  of  the  more  general 
meaning,  besides  the  above  passages,  that  of  Jeremiah  13:  21  ;  but 
Schultens,  Animadvv.  Phil,  on  Jer.  13:21,  has  so  clearly  proved 
that  f|i9N  here  has  not  the  meaning  prince,  but,  as  elsewhere 
also  in  Jeremiah  (3 :  4),  that  of  friend,  that  nothing  farther  need  be 
said.*  This  entirely  peculiar  use  of  f^lbx  in  Zechariah  is  not  unim- 
portant. 1.  It  refutes  the  hypothesis  of  those,  who  assume  that 
chap.  9  is  the  work  of  a  different  author  from  that  before  us.  2.  It 
furnishes  a  testimony  for  the  composition  of  the  second  part  in  the 
period  after  the  exile,  and  therefore  for  its  genuineness.  Such  an 
idiom,  —  much  the  same  as  if  we  should  generally  use  Margrave  for 
Prince,  —  can  be  explained  only  from  his  learning  the  language  out 
of  the  more  ancient  writings,  which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  Zech- 
ariah constantly  imitates. — ^''^'0^  is  to  be  understood  as  a  noun, 
since  no  other  interpretation  can   be  grammatically  justified,  or  give 

*  "  Et  tu  docuisti  eos  amicos  esse  contra  te,  in  caput.  Amarulentissimus 
est  sarcasmus.  '  Tu  Babylonios  tibi  amicos  esse  docuisti,  scil.  tJ'KnS  ut  in 
caput  tibi  sint,  tibique  imperent.'  Hoc  cum  praecedenti  interrogatione,  '  Quid 
dices,'  mire  convenit,  quo  ostenditur,  aliud  expectasse  a  Babyloniis  Judaeos. 
quam  ut  se  opprimerent." 


208  ZECHARIAH  la :  1  —  13  :  6. 

an  appropriate  sense.  The  passage  before  us  receives  light  from 
V.  6,  7.  It  is  there  made  prominent,  that  God  would  first  deliver 
the  feeblest  portion  of  the  covenant  people  most  exposed  to  hostile 
assaults,  designated  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  province  in  contrast 
with  those  of  the  capital,  and  give  them  the  most  splendid  victory 
over  the  common  enemy,  in  order  that  the  former  splendor  of  Jeru- 
salem might  not  receive  by  the  new  advantage  such  an  accession, 
that  Judah  would  be  thereby  entirely  eclipsed.  This  annunciation 
now  in  the  verse  before  us  is  prepared  for,  by  its  being  declared 
how  little  Judah  stood  in  expectation  of  such  prosperity  and  honor, 
and  how  in  quiet  lowliness  and  modesty  he  expected  his  prosperity 
only  from  the  capital,  which  was  peculiarly  favored  of  God  and 
standing  under  his  special  protection.  His  own  confession  of  low- 
liness makes  his  subsequent  glorification  more  manifestly  a  work  of 
God,  who  gives  grace  to  the  humble.  There  is  therefore  no  ground, 
with  Tarnov  and  Michaelis,  ("  Fortitudo  est  mihi  et  hahitatoribus 
Hieros.  non  in  nobis,  sed  in  Jehovah,'^)  arbitrarily  to  assume  an 
asyndeton.  Still  less,  however,  with  Gesenius,  {Thes.  s.  v.  n^px,) 
after  the  example  of  Dathe,  is  a  change  of  the  text  to  be  hazarded  : 
"  Tu  meo  periculo  (indeed)  repone  cum  duobus  codd.  "'3K'''S,  et 
verte :  Presidium  est  kabitatoribus  Hieros.  apud  Jehovam.  Chal- 
dcBus:  Inventa  est  salits  kabitatoribus."  This  proposed  emendation 
is  destitute  of  all  external  authority.  The  Chaldee  paraphrast  can- 
not be  cited  in  its  favor,  because  it  is  obvious,  that,  not  understand- 
ing the  construction,  he  is  only  endeavouring  to  conjecttire  the  sense, 
and  translates  altogether  loosely.  All  other  ancient  translators  have 
the  'S.  Of  two  manuscripts  which  are  said  not  to  have  it,  —  in  the 
mass  of  Codd.  of  no  importance,  —  one  is  moreover  uncertain, 
comp.  De  Rossi  on  the  passage.  But,  what  is  of  chief  importance, 
the  supposed  emendation  gives  no  suitable  sense.  That  Jerusalem 
should  afford  protection  to  the  whole  land,  not  that  it  should  find 
deliverance  for  itself  alone,  must  have  been  earnestly  desired  by 
the  princes  of  Judah.  —  "'S  for  uS  is  explained  by  the  fact,  that  the 
princes  of  Judah  speak  in  the  name  of  the  whole  people,  just  as 
chap.  7  :  3.  The  ambassadors  of  the  covenant  people  ask,  "  Shall 
I  weep  as  I  have  done?  3  designates  the  Lord  as  the  ground  and 
the  source  of  the  strength.  The  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  xvgiog  6  navzo- 
x^aTWQ,  points  to  the  omnipotence  of  God,  "  their  God,"  to  his  will 
to  help,  grounded  on  his  covenant  relation  to  his  people. 

V.  6.    "  In  that  day  will  I  make  the  princes  of  Judah  as  a  fire 


ZECHARIAH  12 :  1  — 13  :  6.  2(^ 

from  under  loood,  and  as  a  torch  of  fire  under  sheaves ;  and  they 
shall  devour,  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left,  alt  the  nations  round 
about,  and  Jerusalem  continues  to  sit  on  her  throne  at  Jerusalem." 
How  far  this  verse  is  to  be  understood  figuratively  and  how  far  liter- 
ally, must  first  be  learnt  from  the  fulfilment,  v/hich  it  would  be  rash- 
ness to  attempt  to  anticipate.  Considering  the  constant  practice  of 
Zechariah  to  employ  what  belongs  to  the  Old  Testament,  as  an  im- 
age and  type  of  the  New  Testament,  the  figurative  interpretation 
cannot  be  rejected  beforehand.  The  substance  would  then  be  only, 
"  the  victory  of  the  covenant  people  over  their  enemies  "  ;  the  special 
designations  belong  only  to  the  type  in  itself  considered.  Still  a 
remark  of  Vitringa  on  Apoc.  19 :  19,  where  exactly  the  same  repre- 
sentation occurs,  so  that  this  cannot  be  regarded  in  any  event  as 
peculiar  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  belonging  to  its  inferior  charac- 
ter, deserves  all  regard :  "  Deus  non  pugnat  cum  hostibus  suis  cor- 
porali  modo ;  nee  Christus  etiam  sua:  ecclesice  rex.  Quando  tamen 
sua  curat  providentia,  ut  ecclesia  nanciscatur  vindices  sues  causce, 
per  quos  ipse  hostes  suos  dejicit  et  prosfernit :  turn  vero  ipse,  spiritu- 
al! quidem  modo  pugnans,  vincit  etiam  corporaliter  :  suntqiie  effecta 
victories  Christi  ejusmodi  in  casu  per  orbem  manifesta."  The  con- 
solation afforded  the  church  by  this  promise,  however  it  may  be 
understood  in  reference  to  the  outward  circumstances,  is  developed 
by  Calvin  :  "  Travsferfur  ad  ecclcsiam  opus  ipsius  dei,  quemadmo- 
dum  aliis  in  locis,  Tenenda  est  hcBc  prophetcB  doctrina,  quamvis 
hostes  nostri  turmatim  in  nos  ruant,  tamen  fore  lignorum  congeriem 
et  nos  fore  similes  fornaci :  quia  ctiamsi  in  nobis  nullcB  sint  vires, 
domimis  tamen  occulta  sua  gratia  efficiet,  ut  solo  accessu  sese  consu- 
mant  hostes  nostri."  —  The  last  member  is  erroneously  interpreted 
by  most  commentators  :  "  Jerusalem  dwells  still  in  her  place  at 
Jerusalem."  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose,  that  nnn  ever  means  place, 
comp.  p.  57.  The  phrase,  "  under  herself,"  shows,  that  2i[>l  is  to 
be  taken  in  the  sense  to  sit.  Jerusalem  is  here,  as  usual,  personi- 
fied as  a  matron.  She  continues  to  sit  on  the  throne,  (the  verb  ::^"l, 
in  like  manner,  of  sitting  on  the  throne,  chap.  6:  13,)  from  which 
her  enemies  thought  to  cast  her  down.  Explanatory  in  every  re- 
spect is  the  passage.  Is.  47  :  1,  where  the  opposite  is  said  of  Baby- 
lon :  "  Descend  and  sit  in  the  dust,  thou  virgin  daughter,  Babylon  ; 
sit  on  the  earth  without  a  throne,  thou  daughter  of  the  Chaldeans." 
The  phrase,  "  under  herself,"  is  here  i.  q.  on  that,  which  she  had 
hitherto  had  under  herself,  on  her  throne.  This  passage  of  Isaiah 
VOL.  II.  27 


2 1 0  ZECHARIAH  12.1.-13:6. 

at  the  same  time,  throws  light  on  a  number  of  other  passagBvS,  in 
which  the  entirely  unsupported  meaning,  to  be  inhabited,  is  attribut- 
ed to  the  verb  3K/;  by  lexicographers  (comp.  e.  g.  Winer,  s.  v.)  and 
commentators  (e.  g.  Gesenius  on  Is.  13 :  20).  In  all  these  passages 
a  personification  of  the  cities  lies  at  the  foundation  ;  as  long  as  they 
remain  unconquered,  they  appear  as  proud  princesses  sitting  on  their 
throne.  So  e.  g.  Is.  13:  20,  ini  in  n;?  \)2ti^  nSi  m)h  2vjr\  i^h, 
"  She  will  never  more  sit  and  never  again  dwell."  The  error  of  the 
translation  by  "  she  will  not  be  inhabited,"  is  the  more  obvious  here 
as  well  as  Jer.  50  :  39,  since  we  are  then  compelled  to  understand 
the  verb  |l)tf/  in  an  intransitive  sense,  which  never  occurs.  This 
difference  of  explanation  has  in  many  passages  an  important  bearing 
on  the  sense.  A  land  or  a  city  cannot  sit  {lie  doicn),  without  there- 
by becoming  entirely  uninhabited,  as  e.  g.  we  cannot  infer  from 
"  Askalon  will  not  sit,"  chap.  9:5,  an  entire  depopulation  of  the 
city,  but  only  its  deep  decline,  in  exact  parallelism  with  the  preced- 
ing member,  "  Gaza  loses  its  king." 

V.  7.  "  And  the  Lord  ivill  help  the  tents  of  Judahjirst :  in  order 
that  the  splendor  of  the  house  of  David,  and  the  splendor  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  may  not  exalt  itself  above  Judah."  The 
tents  of  Judah  here  stand  in  plain  antithesis  with  the  capital.  A 
similar  antithesis  occurs  wherever  the  tents  of  Judah  or  Israel  are 
mentioned,  comp.  e.  g.  2  Sam.  20  :  1,  "  A  wicked  man  said  :  we 
have  no  part  in  David  ;  every  one  to  his  tents,  O  Israel ; "  v.  22, 
"  And  they  dispersed  themselves  from  the  city,  each  one  to  his 
tent,"  1  Kings  8  :  66,  "  Solomon  dismissed  the  people  and  they 
went  to  their  tents."  Judges  20  :  8,  "  And  the  whole  people  rose 
up  as  one  man,  saying  :  We  will  not  go  each  one  to  his  tent."  The 
use  of  the  term  tents  for  houses,  in  these  passages,  is  occasioned  by 
the  effort  to  lessen  that  which  was  dispersed  and  scattered,  in  con- 
trast with  that  which  was  concentrated ;  just  as  among  us  every  one, 
who  inhabits  a  respectable  house  can  say,  "  I  retire  from  the  capital 
into  my  hut ;  "  and  we  need  not,  with  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Winer, 
find  a  relic  of  the  old  nomadic  times.  In  this  passage,  however, 
the  designation  seems  to  have  a  special  subordinate  reference  to  the 
helplessness  of  Judah,  and  thus  to  make  more  emphatic  the  ex- 
pression, "  And  the  Lord  helps."  Calvin  :  "  JPer  taberriacula  meo 
judicio  intelligit  propheta  tuguria,  qna:  non  possunt  tucri  suos  hos- 
piles  vel  inquilinos.  —  Est  hie  tacita  comparatio  inter  tuguria  ct 
urbps  mnnitas."     Parallel  is  Ezek.  38  :  11,  "  And  thou  shalt  say,  I 


ZECHARIAH  12:  1.-13:6.  211 

will  go  up  to  the  land  of  unw ailed  villages  ;  I  will  go  to  them  that 
are  at  rest,'that  dwell  safely,  all  of  them  dwelling  without  walls,  and 
having  neither  bars  nor  gates."  The  expression,  "  in  order  not,"  (Si-c, 
refers  to  Jirst,  and  not  to  the  divine  help,  which  should  be  granted 
to  Jerusalem,  as  well  as  to  Judah,  and  indeed  through  the  latter. 
There  is  a  good  reason  why  r>^>^3n  is  not  repeated  before  Judah. 
Burk  :  "  Simplex  Judce  nieniio  ostendit,  non  Jiabuisse  alias  Judam 
aliquid  decoris,  quo  se  potuissct  effa-re."  nTJSi^sn,  not  gloriatio,  but 
decus,  mnjestas.  The  discourse  is  here  only  of  the  possession  of  ad- 
vantages, which,  however,  might  easily  be  abused,  by  the  corruption 
of  human  nature,  to  self-exaltation  above  others,  and  above  God,  and 
the  too  great  accumulation  of  which  must  therefore  be  guarded 
against.  It  appears  that  the  prophet  here  had  in  view  such  an 
abuse,  as  Jerusalem  at  an  earlier  period  had  made  of  its  advantages 
over  the  country.  The  strong  shall  be  delivered  by  the  weak,  in 
order  that  the  true  equilibrium  may  be  restored  between  both,  in 
order,  as  Jerome  remarks,  that  it  may  be  manifest :  "  Domini  esse 
in  utrisque  victoriam." 

V.  8.  "  Iti  that  day  the  Lord  will  defend  the  inhabilants  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  and  he  that  stumhleth  among  them  in  that  day,  shall  he  as 
David,  and  the  house  of  David  like  God,  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
before  them."  The  article  in  ht2-iT\  must  not  be  overlooked,  as  it  has 
been  by  Riickert.  It  divides  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  into  two 
parts,  the  weak  and  the  strong.  The  latter  are  afterwards  desig- 
nated by  the  house  of  David.  The  former  shall  attain  to  the  degree 
which  the  strongest  among  the  latter,  their  ancestor  the  brave  hero 
and  king,  David,  once  occupied ;  the  latter  shall  rise  to  an  elevation 
unknown  to  the  former  Theocracy.  The  prophet  thus  by  way  of 
individualization  expresses  the  thought,  that  at  that  time  the  Lord 
will  exalt  his  people  to  a  glory  not  imagined  in  the  former  Theocra- 
cy. Similar,  Is.  60 :  22,  "  The  few  will  become  thousands,  and 
the  feeble  a  strong  people."  ^^^h  properly  a  stumbler,  then  in  gen- 
eral one  who  is  weak,  1  Sam.  2  :  4.  Calvin  :  "  Quasi  diceret : 
Erunt  omties  instructi  heroica  ct  rcgia  virtute  non  modo  homines  ple- 
bejd,  sed  etiam,  qui  videntur  similes  esse  fosminis,  et  qui  nihil  virile 
pr(B  se  ferunt,  illi  tamcn  excellent  heroica  virtute  Davidis."  — 
criSxs  is  by  most  interpreters  (Calvin,  Michaelis,  Mark,  Burk,  Ro- 
senmiiller)  translated,  as  an  angel.  But  this  import  the  word  never 
has,  as  we  have  already  shown.  Vol.  I.  p.  92.  But  the  reason  given 
for   this    interpretation    well  deserves    to   be   considered,    viz.   that 


212  ZECHAKIAH12:  1  —  13:G. 

Otherwise  the  progress  to  the  following,  "  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord," 
will  not,  as  we  should  naturally  expect,  be  a  climax.  The  difficulty 
however  may  be  removed  by  the  following  remark.  D'riSx  expresses, 
(as  even  the  plural  form,  the  usual  designation  of  the  abstract, 
(comp.  Ewald,  p.  326,)  shows,)  the  abstract  conception  of  Deity. 
When  it  is  not  rendered  concrete  by  the  article,  it  often  stands 
where  merely  what  is  superhuman,  or  more  than  earthly,  is  desig- 
nated, (comp.  Ewald,  Die  Composition  der  Genesis,  p.  26  fF.)  Es- 
pecially remarkable  in  this  respect  is  Ps.  8:5,  "  Thou  hast  made 
man  a  little  lower  than  D'HSw^n,  God"  (|n  according  to  usage,  can 
indicate  only  the  thing  in  which  the  deficiency  is).  Here  those 
who  understand  by  CnSx  "  the  one  true  God,"  are  in  as  great  an  er- 
ror as  those,  who,  merely  from  the  difficulty  of  escaping  from  this 
unpleasant  sense,  give,  as  here,  the  sense  angel  to  CnSx,  which, 
however,  does  not  suit,  for  the  simple  reason,  that  the  angels  have 
no  dominion  over  nature,  while  nevertheless  the  subject  of  discourse 
is  solely  that  dignity,  which  man  possesses  as  a  vicegerent  of  God. 
Hence  those  expose  themselves  to  ridicule,  who  would  deduce  from 
this  Psalm  a  proof  of  the  moral  dignity  of  man  since  the  fall.  We 
find  the  true  interpretation  in  Calvin  :  "  Verba  Davidis  perinde 
valere  interpretor,  ac  si  dixisset,  parum  abesse  homines  a  divino  et 
ccelesti  statu."  "  Thou  hast  exalted  him  almost  to  a  divinity." 
This,  when  applied  to  the  passage  before  us,  where  D'HSn  stands  in 
like  manner  without  the  article,  shows  at  once  that  there  is  actually 
a  progress  from  the  lesser  to  the  greater.  "  The  house  of  David  will 
be  as  something  more  than  earthly,"  is  not  so  strong  as,  "  it  will  be 
as  the  angel  of  the  Lord."  We  must  not  with  some  translate,  "  as  aii 
angel,"  or  "an  angel  of  the  Lord,"  (Rijckert,  comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  174,) 
but  "  the  angel  of  the  Lord,"  his  revealer,  to  whom  Zechariah  con- 
stantly attributes  his  names  and  works,  (comp.  p.  83.)  In  these  last 
words  D.p'.;?'?  is  understood  in  different  ways.  After  the  Syriac, 
several  (Michaelis,  Burk,  Rosenmiiller)  :  "  Who  was  before  them." 
Eichhorn  :  "  As  (once)  Jehovah's  angel  in  the  front  of  Israel."  But 
we  see  not  the  use  of  this  forced  interpretation,  since  in  the  other, 
"  The  house  of  David  will  be  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord  before  them," 
there  is  no  difficulty.  According  to  this  also,  there  is  an  allusion 
to  the  march  through  the  wilderness,  where  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
went  before  Israel,  (comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  167.)  Parallel  as  to  the  expres- 
sion is  Mic.  2:13,  "  Their  king  marches  before  them,  DD^n  lii^ii 
DH'jgS,  and  the  Lord  in  their  front,"     The  :?  does  not  here  denote 


ZECHARIAH  12:1.— 13:  6.  213 

equality,  but  resemblance,  just  as  2  Sam.  14  :  17.  "  For  as  the  angel 
of  the  Lord,  so  is  my  Lord  the  King,  to  hear  the  good  and  the 
evil."  V.  20,  "  My  Lord  is  wise,  as  the  wisdom  of  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  to  know  all  that  is  on  earth."  Equality,  there,  is  surely  not 
intended.  —  Erroneously  Calvin  :  "  Jubet  Jideles  attendere  ad  domum 
Davidis,  qucs  nunc  proisus  spoliatu  erat  omnl  dignitate,  nt  nulla 
esset  juvandi  facuUas.  Nihil  enim  tune  potuit  cerni  in  posteris 
Davidis  nisi  probrosum,  vel  saltern  contcmptibile.  Et  tamen  propheta 
jubet  ipsos  sperare  salutem  ex  ilia  domo."  The  house  of  David 
forms  here,  as  the  antithesis  in  the  verse,  and  also  the  comparison 
of  V.  12,  show,  only  a  type  for  the  noblest  of  the  covenant  people, 
and  their  future  leaders;  just  as  the  prophet  designates  the  future 
enemies  of  the  covenant  people  by  Egypt  and  Ashur  ;  their  future 
deliverance,  as  a  passage  through  the  Red  Sea ;  the  land  of  their 
future  exile,  by  Shinar. 

V.  9.  "  It  will  be  in  that  day,  that  I  loill  seek  to  destroy  all  na- 
tions, who  come  against  Jerusalem."  —  Several  interpreters  translate 
T'DB'n'?  typgx,  /  tvill  seek  out,  in  order  to  destroy.  But  the  strik- 
ingly coincident  parallel  passage,  chap.  6:7,  "  The  strong  strove  to 
go  through  the  whole  earth,  and  the  Lord  said  ;  Do  it,"  shows,  that 
here  also  the  verb  tJ'D?  with  b  must  be  understood  of  a  striving 
after  something.  Calvin  :  "  Intelligit  deum  intentum/ore,  quemad- 
modum  solent  ho7nines  solUciti  et  qui  serio  aliquid  procurant :  —  sum- 
7110  studio  ero  attentus." 

V.  10.  "  Jlnd  I  pour  out  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  gracious  suppli- 
cation, and  they  look  on  me  whom  they  have  pierced,  and  they  la- 
ment for  him  as  the  lamentations  for  an  only  son,  and  mourn  for  him 
as  the  mourning  for  the  first-born." —  On  'nagK/i  Jerome  remarks 
justly  :  "  Verbum  effusionis  sensum  largitatis  ostendit."  It  is  at 
first  view  remarkable,  that  here,  as  chap.  13:  1,  only  the  house  of 
David  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  are  mentioned,  and  not  Ju- 
dah.  This  is  explained  by  the  frequent  practice  of  the  more  ancient 
prophets  of  designating  the  Theocracy  by  its  capital  or  central  point, 
Jerusalem  or  Zion.  The  prophet  could  the  more  readily  adopt  this 
usage  here,  since  the  former  contrast  between  Jerusalem  and  Judah 
no  longer  existed  ;  and  in  reference  to  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit 
there  was  not,  as  in  respect  to  the  deliverance,  a  difference  which 
could  induce  him,  as  there,  to  make  a  separation.  In  the  first  part 
also,  Jerusalem  only  is  mentioned  several  times,  though  the  prophet 


214  ZECHARl  AH  12:  1.-13:0. 

had  in  view  the  whole  Theocracy.  Thus  e.  g.  chap.  3:2,  "  The 
Lord  rebuke  thee,  who  chooses  Jerusalem ;  "  chap.  8 :  8,  while  in 
other  passages,  e.  g.  1  :  12,  the  Theocracy  is  designated  by  Jerusa- 
lem and  the  cities  of  Judah.  —  The  spirit  of  grace  is  the  spirit 
which  works  grace ;  brings  grace  with  it ;  comp.  the  entirely  similar 
idiom,  Is.  11:  1,  "The  spirit  of  wisdom,  of  power,"  &c.  By  |n 
grace  is  not  to  be  understood  as  an  attribute  of  God,  but  its  opera- 
tion as  a  new  principle  of  life  in  man.  Very  significant  is  the  com- 
bination of  grace  and  gracious  supplication.  By  the  very  choice  of 
the  expressions  derived  from  the  same  root,  it  is  intimated  that  this 
supplication  has  its  source  in  grace.  Burk  :  "  Sic  vero  Judcei  toti 
sunabuntur  ub  opinione  meriti  et  a  consuetudine  precularum."  The 
verb  D"'3n  with  hs<  often  stands,  where  a  spiritual  or  a  corporeal 
looking  upon  an  object,  with  confidence  in  it,  is  intended,  in  like 
manner  as  &t(o§ii.r,  e.  g.  John  G:  40.  Thus  is  it,  Num.  21  :  9,  in 
reference  to  the  brazen  serpent,  by  looking  upon  which  the  Israel- 
ites were  healed.  It  stands  here  in  silent  antithesis  with  the  con- 
tempt and  disgust  with  which  Israel  had  formerly  turned  away  his 
face  from  the  Messiah,  comp.  Is.  53 :  14.  —  Very  remarkable  is, 
"on  me."  The  speaker,  according  to  v.  1,  is  the  Lord,  the  creator 
of  heaven  and  earth.  That  we  are  not,  however,  to  understand  by 
him,  the  one  invisible  God  exalted  above  all  suffering,  is  shown  by 
what  follows,  where  this  Jehovah  represents  himself  as  pierced  by 
Israel,  and  now  bewailed  by  him  in  bitter  repentance.  We  are 
rather  led  thereby  to  the  angel  and  revealer  of  the  most  High  God, 
to  whom  the  prophet,  on  account  of  his  participation  in  the  divine 
nature,  attributes  all,  even  the  most  exalted  names  of  God,  (comp. 
p.  24,  who  had  also,  according  to  chap.  11,  undertaken  the  office 
of  shepherd  over  the  people,  and  been  rewarded  by  them  with  the 
basest  ingratitude.  The  suf.  in  rS>|^  is  taken  by  several  interpre- 
ters, who  adhere  to  the  Messianic  interpretation,  not  for  a  person, 
but  for  a  thing.  So  Gousset,  Schultens,  Animadvv.  Phill.  on  the 
passage,  and  Dathe,  "  They  lament  for  it,"  viz.  for  the  crime  of  pierc- 
ing. But  the  grounds  for  this  interpretation  are  not  tenable.  They 
appeal  first  to  the  interchange  of  persons  "'Sx  and  rSj;.  But  such  a 
transition  from  the  first  to  the  third  person  is  so  frequent,  particu- 
larly with  the  prophets,  that  the  citation  of  particular  examples  is 
unnecessary,  (comp.  Gesen.  Lclirg.  p.  742.)  Here,  however,  a  spe- 
cial reason  existed  in  what  precedes  :  "  The  same  whom  they  have 
pierced ;  "   wherein  there  is  properly  already  a  transition  to  the  third 


ZECHARIAH  12:1.— 13:6.  216 

person.  They  remark  further  :  "  Qnid  jidehs  illi  Judai  Ivgerenf 
T'^Z^'j  de  eo,  3Iessia  scil.  interfecto,  quern  tamen  vivvni  mm  spe  et 
Jidxicia  dicimtur  intueri  7  "  The  answer  to  this  question,  however, 
was  in  part  given  by  Augustine,  even  before  it  was  asked,  De  Civit. 
Dei,  I.  XX.  Cap.  30 :  "  Sicut  dixitmts  Jtidceis,  vos  occidistis  Chris- 
tum, quamvis  hoc  parcntes  eoruvi  fecerint,  sic  ct  ipsi  dolebunt  se 
fecisse  quodammodo,  quod  fecerunt  illi,  ex  quorum  stirpe  dcscendvnt. 
Quamvis  igitur,  jam  acccpto  spiritu  graticn  ct  misericardicE,  jam 
jideles  non  damnabuntur  cum  impiis  parenlibus  suis,  dolebunt  tamen 
tanquam  ipsi  j'ecerint,  quod  illis  factum  est.  Non  igitur  dolebunt 
reatu  criminis,  sed  pietatis  effectu.'"  They  lament  for  the  murdered 
one,  not  as  though  he  were  still  subject  to  death,  but  in  painful  con- 
sciousness, that  he  had  been  slain  by  their  sins.  That  the  Lord 
had  turned  to  good  what  they  intended  for  evil,  cannot  mitigate 
their  distress.  They  behold  in  this  only  their  own  deed  and  its 
natural  result.  That  their  forefathers,  and  not  they  themselves,  per- 
formed the  deed,  affords  them  no  consolation.  They  are  conscious 
that  the  guilt  is  national ;  that  by  participating  in  the  disposition  of 
their  fathers,  which  caused  the  crime,  and  by  their  bitter  hatred 
against  the  Messiah,  they  have  made  themselves  partakers  in  the 
guilt  of  this  crime,  and  that  it  can  be  punished  in  them  also,  with 
the  same  right  as,  at  the  time  of  the  invasion  of  the  Chaldeans,  the 
sins  of  former  generations  were  punished  in  their  forefathers,  with 
whom  they  stood  in  the  closest  connexion  through  their  crimes. 
That  which  is  decisive  against  this  interpretation  is,  partly,  that  hy> 
following  the  verb  13D  signifies  in  general  the  object,  and  uniformly 
the  person  bewailed,  comp.  e.  g.  Jer.  34  :  5,  2  Sam.  11  :  26,  1  Kings 
10  :  30  ;  partly,  that,  in  the  following  context  throughout,  lamentation 
for  persons  only  is  spoken  of,  for  an  only  son,  for  the  first-born,  for 
King  Josiah-;  and  partly,  that,  v.  12-  14,  the  grievous  lamentation  of 
the  whole  people  and  of  all  individuals  for  one  who  is  dead  is  plainly 
represented.  —  "inn,  properly,  "  in  making  bitter"  refers,  as  the  use  of 
the  infin.  i.tself  shows,  to  the  foregoing,  "  they  lament,"  and  we  need 
not  therefore,  with  most  interpreters,  from  a  comparison  of  Is.  22  : 4, 
035.  1?.nfr?,  here  supply  loeeping,  and  the  less  so,  since  the  suitable- 
ness of  the  reference  to  13D  is  established  by  Jer.  6  :  26,  nSDr? 
Dnnpn.  The  lamentation  for  an  only  son  occurs  also  elsewhere  as 
a  designation  of  the  deepest  mourning;  Amos  8:6,  "  And  I  make 
it  as  the  mourning  of  the  first-born."  Jer.  6  :  26,  "■  Daughter  of  my 
people  put  on  sackcloth,  cover  thyself  with  ashes,  make  for  thyself  a 


216  ZECH ARIAH  12 :  1 .  — 13 :  6. 

lamentation  of  the  first-born."  The  mourning  for  the  first-born  was 
typified  in  Egypt,  comp.  Exod.  11:6,  "And  there  was  a  great  cry  in 
the  land,  such  as  never  had  been  and  never  will  be."  —  The  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophecy  of  our  verse  was  remarkably  typified  imme- 
diately after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  and  has  been  erroneously 
supposed  by  several  interpreters  to  have  then  taken  place  ;  comp. 
Luke  23  :  48,  Kul  ndvtEg  ol  avfiTiagccytvofiBvoi  o/loi  snl  ttjv  ^scogluv 
Tavrrjv,  ■d-iiogotvTig  tcc  ysvoueva  rvmovTsg  kavtwv  xa  ari^xtn]  (this  the 
ground  meaning  of  the  verb  n3D,  that  originally  designates  an  es- 
pecial manifestation  of  mourning,  comp.  Is.  32  :  12,  "  They  beat 
upon  their  breasts,"  Winer  s.  v.)  vnsargecpov.  The  multitude  who 
shortly  before  had  cried  out,  "  Crucify  him,"  here,  struck  by  the  mani- 
festation of  the  superhuman  dignity  of  Jesus,  smite  upon  themselves, 
and  lament  for  the  dead,  and  their  own  crime  ;  and  the  probably 
transient  emotion  of  those  individuals  served  as  a  feeble  type  of  the 
thorough  repentance  of  the  whole  people.  —  We  have  still  to  notice 
the  reference  to  this  passage  in  the  New  Testament.  The  only 
proper  citation  is  that  of  John  19  :  37,  Kal  ndXiv  srsga  yQucpi]  Xfyti ' 
"OyjovTui,  Eig  ov  i^sxevir^aav.  In  regard  to  the  relation  of  this  citation 
to  the  prophecy,  we  oflfer  the  following  remarks.  1.  The  only  de- 
viation from  the  words  of  the  original  is  the  change  of  the  first  per- 
son into  the  third.  In  Zechariah  the  Messiah  himself  speaks,  John 
speaks  of  him,  comp.  Surenhus.  ^ij5L  y.a.r.  p.  382.  That  the  apostle, 
who  here,  leaving  the  Septuagint,  translates  immediately  from  the 
Hebrew,  had  before  him  another  reading,  is  the  more  improbable, 
since  in  the  citation.  Matt.  27  :  9,  from  Zech.  11  :  13,  we  find  ex- 
actly the  same  phenomenon,  arising  from  the  effort  after  greater 
clearness.  2.  Although  Vitringa  {Obss.  II.  9,  p.  172),  and  Michae- 
lis  have  taken  pains  to  evince  the  opposite,  yet  is  it  plain  that  the 
citation  of  John  refers  directly  only  to  the  piercing  with  the  lance, 
and  not  to  the  whole  crucifixion  of  Christ.  He  relates  v.  31  -  33, 
how  the  bones  of  the  Lord  were  not  broken,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
others ;  v.  34,  how  his  side  was  pierced.  He  then,  v.  26,  adduces  an 
Old  Testament  witness  for  the  first,  v.  27,  for  the  second.  But, 
allowing  that  John  cites  the  prophecy  only  in  reference  to  this  par- 
ticular circumstance,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he  extended  it  no 
farther,  but  only  that  he  found  it  fulfilled  in  it,  and  indeed  most 
justly,  since  the  piercing  with  the  spear,  as  well  as  the  whole  cruci- 
fixion, according  to  Acts  2  :  23,  was  a  work  of  the  Jews  in  respect 
to  the  spiritual,  though  not  the  material  cause.     That  John  is  very 


ZECHARIAH  12:  1.-13:0.  217 

far  from  always  limiting  the  prophecies  to  the  object  to  which  he 
immediately  refers  them,  is  very  evident  from  chap.  18:9;  comp. 
Vol.  I.  p.  250.  But  the  prophecy  would  plainly  lose  in  importance 
if  the  verb  "ip^T.  should  be  limited  to  the  single  fact  of  the  piercing 
with  the  lance,  as  has  been  already  shown  among  others  by  Lampe, 
in  Jo.  III.  p.  634.  Bas.  It  rather  designates  the  whole  suffering 
by  which  the  death  of  the  Messiah  was  effected.  That  this  was  the 
substance,  and  that  the  instrument  and  kind  of  death  were  unimpor- 
tant, appears  from  the  comparison  of  chap.  13  :  7,  where  the  sword 
is  mentioned  as  the  instrument,  while  "ipT.  rather  suggests  the  idea 
of  a  spear.  —  Besides  this  direct  citation,  there  is  also  in  two  pas- 
sages, and  plainly  by  design,  an  allusion  to  this  place.  Matt.  24  :  30 ; 
Kal  TOTE  xo^iovxai  naaai  al  (fivXal  triq  yrjg,  yal  oipovTai  rbv  vlov  xov 
uv&ganov  fQxofisvov  inl  twv  vscpsXav  tov  ovquvov.  Apoc.  1:7;  ^l8ov, 
tgXETai,  (itxu  zmv  vscpskav,  teal  oifjsrai,  avTov  nag  o(p&aX^bg,  nal  oixLVsg 
avTov  i^s>cEVT7]aav.  These  passages  are  a  kind  of  sacred  parody  of 
that  in  Zechariah.  They  show,  that,  with  the  wholesome  repent- 
ance, the  godly  sorrow,  of  which  Zechariah  speaks,  there  is  another 
repentance,  the  despair  of  Judas  :  with  the  voluntary  looking  to  him 
who  had  been  pierced,  another  involuntary,  from  which  even  the 
unbeliever  cannot  escape.  The  thrilling  sublimity  of  this  allusion 
every  one  must  perceive.  It  shows,  moreover,  that  the  Lord  himself 
and  his  apostles  referred  the  passage  to  him.  —  Before  we  proceed 
to  the  history  of  the  interpretation,  we  give  the  following  beautiful 
remarks  respecting  it  by  Franc.  Lambert,  a  Catholic  theologian  in 
the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  (ad.  h.  I.  p.  186.)  "  Sentiat 
quisque  de  hoc  planctu,  quod  bonum  illi  videhitur,  ego  dice  rem 
magni  periculi  esse,  negare,  quod  de  Isracle  capiatur.  Et  quod  ad 
me  spectat,  sentio  Jirmissime,  quod  ex  omnibus  tribubiis  Israel,  reli- 
qui<B  tandem  ad  Dominum  Jesum  Christum  convertcntur,  et  agnos- 
cent  eum.  Videntes  autem  suam  impietatein  et  coecitatem,  in  qua  tot 
seculis  fuerunt,  videntes  etiam  bonitatem  dei,  qui  tam  magna  illis 
facere  dignatus  est,  dum  carnem  ex  eis  assumpsit,  et  quod  se  abne- 
gantcs  non  exterminarit ,  sed  tandem  in  misericordiam  susceperit, 
congregaritque  eos  in  ecclesiam  suam :  turn  confundentur  super  ini- 
quitatibus  suis,  et  prcs  dolore  malorum,  quce  perpetrarunt,  non  cum 
desperatione,  sed  cum  multajiducia  bonitatis  dei  et  Christi  plangent. 
Fa  turn  implebitur  hie  sermo.  Utcunqiie  fuit  planctus  in  Jerusalem 
Christo  passo,  sed  eidem  non  convenit  fictus  ille  per  familias  Israel 
hie  positus." 

VOL.  II.  28 


218  ZECHARIAH  12:  1-13:6. 

History  of  the  Inttrpretatioji. 
1.    Among  the  Jews. 

A  valuable  collection  of  materials  is  given  by  Frischmuth,  Dissert. 
de  Messia  Confizo,  reprinted  in  the  Thes.  TIicoI.  Phil.  I.  p.  1042  sq. 
and  Salemann,  Jehovah  Transfossus,  ibid.  p.  1054  sq.  Even  before 
the  appearance  of  Christ,  the  Jews  had  occasion  to  mistake  the  true 
sense  of  the  prophecy  :  it  pointed,  not  merely  to  a  suffering  and  dy- 
ing Messiah  in  general,  as  Is.  53,  but  to  such  a  Messiah,  who  was 
moreover  united  with  God  by  a  mysterious  unity  of  being,  a  mystery 
which  could  not  be  perfectly  comprehended  until  after  the  manifes- 
tation of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  flesh.  After  the  coming  of  Christ  the 
difficulty  must  have  been  increased  ;  they  were  not  only,  as  in  former 
times,  deprived  of  the  light  of  the  fulfilment,  but  also  driven  to  ex- 
tremities by  the  Christian  controversy,  which  rested  on  this  passage. 
How  little  an  unprejudiced  interpretation  can  be  expected  from 
them  under  these  circumstances,  is  shown  by  the  naive  confession 
of  Abarbanel,  that  the  chief  object  of  his  explanation  was  to  remove 
the  stumblingblock,  which  the  Christian  interpretation  had  thrown 
in  the  way  of  his  people.  The  history  of  this  interpretation  among 
the  Jews  therefore  is  little  more  than  a  statement  of  the  principal 
wa;ys,  which  they  have  pursued  in  perverting  th€  prophecy.  Their 
contradictory  explanations  at  once  awaken  suspicion  of  their  cor- 
rectness. 

1.  Some  sought  to  remove  the  difficulty  by  a  figurative  under- 
standing of  "ipT.,  to  pierce,  i.  q.  to  grieve.  According  to  them  the 
verse  represents  the  repentance,  which  the  Jews  should  experience 
at  a  future  period,  on  account  of  their  sin  against  the  Lord.  Fol- 
lowing this  view  the  Seventy  translate  "ETii^liipovzai  ngoq  fih,  uvSt 
wv  KaTWQxr,ottVTo.  After  Jerome,  many  here  suppose  the  Seventy 
have  interchanged  ^ilD^T.  with  ^"'P'^,  and,  indeed,  there  are  not  want- 
ing examples  of  a  similar  metathesis,  comp.  Hottinger,  Thes.  Philol. 
p.  361.  Others  suppose,  after  Lud.  Cappellus  and  Frischmuth,  that 
they  read  npn  in  their  manuscripts,  which  is  by  no  means  prob- 
able ;  for  this  reading  has  otherwise  nothing  in  its  favor.  Others, 
with  Cocceius  and  Buxtorf,  suppose  them,  in  their  embarrassment, 
to  have  substituted  by  conjecture  npn  for  npn.  That  Vossius 
{Dc  Translat.  LXX.  Interprctt.  p.  20  and  77),  from  blind  partiality 
for  the   Seventy,    asserted  that  ur^   av  yctToigx^oarxo  was  a  later 


ZECH ARIAH  12  :  J .  -  13  :  0.  219 

corrupiioii,  we  would  not  mention,  if  Evvald  [Commentar.  in  Apoc, 
p.  93,)  had  not  recently  expressed  the  same  opinion.     This  cannot 
well  be  explained,  except  from  the  effort  to  set  aside  an  argument, 
not  entirely  unimportant,  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Apocalypse,  the 
remarkable  coincidence  in  the  citation  of  this  passage,  John  19  :  37, 
and  Apoc.  1 :  7,  which  can  by  no  means  be  set  aside  by  appealing 
to  the  analogy  of  the  coincidence  of  Aq.,  Symm.,  and  Theodotion  in 
the  use  of  ixhsvteIp,  since  one  of  these   used  the  others,  and  since 
their  agreement  is  confined  exclusively  to  (kxevtuv.     How  could  this 
later  corruption  of  the  Septuagint  arise?    It  must  be  supposed  to 
have  proceeded  from  Christians.     For  the  Evangelist  John  and  the 
author  of  the  Apocalypse  must  both  have  drawn  from  the  Seventy. 
But  at  a  later  period  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  Jews  to 
have  corrupted  the  text,  since  this  passage  attracted  from  the  begin- 
ning the   highest  attention   of  Christians.     Moreover,  the  Alexan- 
drian version  is  known  to  have  been  soon  given  up  by  the  Jews. 
That  the  change   was  made  by   Christians  is  however  just  as  im- 
possible.    How  could  they  have  acted  so  directly  in  opposition  to 
their  own  interests,  how  could  they  have  brought  the  passage  in  the 
Seventy  in  contradiction  with  the  citation  in  John  ?     A  mistake  of 
a  single  transcriber  would  immediately  have  been  perceived,  and 
could  not  have  been  handed   down  in  all  the  manuscripts.     The 
reading  cannot  have  arisen  from  an  interpolation  of  the  other  Greek 
translations,  since  no  one  of  these  has  the  present  reading  of  the 
Seventy.  —  The  correct  view,  viz.  that  the  Seventy  read  indeed 
''^PtIj  but,  because  they  regarded  the  proper  meaning  of  the  verb  as 
absurd,  gave  it  a  figurative  import,  to  pierce  =  to  insult,  has  been 
taken  by  only  a  few,  among  the  ancients,  Lampe,l.  c,  p.  633,  among 
the   moderns,  Schleusner   s.   v.   Katoqx-t  comp.  also   Vogel  zu  Cap- 
pell.  I.  140.     The  correctness  of  this  view  is  rendered  certain,  if  we 
only  consider  the  example  of  a  similar  proceeding  of  the  Seventy  in 
the  portion  before  us.     Particularly  remarkable  is  their  translation 
of  the.  same  verb  "^p_T  in  chap.  13 :  3.     The  meaning  to  pierce,  ap- 
peared to  them  there  unsuitable,  because  they  could  not  think  that 
parents  could  be  so  cruel  as  to  slay  their  son,  perhaps  also,  because 
they  supposed,   like  several  later  interpreters,  that  the   discourse, 
V.  5,  6,  relates  to  the  same  individual.     It  could  not  therefore  be 
supposed  that  he  was  slain.     They  translate,  therefore,  Ipn  in  this 
place  by  avfmodl^Hv,  "  to  bind  together  the  feet,"  while  they  always 
render  it  elsewhere  by  anoxfyiiii',  h.-Acvnlv,  zaxay.iviuv,  rnqManHv. 


220  ZECH ARIAH  12 :  1.  —  1 3  :  (3. 

Another  example  is  found  in  chap.  12  :  8.  It  there  appeared  to 
them  strange,  that  the  house  of  David  should  be  as  God.  They 
therefore  translated  cnbi^D  by  mg  ohog  Ssov,  while  Jonathan  ("  siait 
principes  prosper ahuntur")  sought  to  remove  the  difficulty  in  an- 
other way  by  giving  to  CnSx  the  sense  magnates.  —  This  alone  may 
perhaps  be  conceded  to  the  defenders  of  the  other  views,  that  the 
Seventy  in  choosing  precisely  the  verb  Kujogxiofiui  to  express  the 
idea  of  the  contempt  and  crime  of  which  the  Jews  had  been  guilty, 
were  induced  by  the  recollection  of  the  verb  npjn,  related  perhaps  in 
their  opinion  with  the  verb  ip_n.  —  We  have  no  hesitation  in  attrib- 
uting the  same  interpretatio-n  to  the  Chaldee  also,  whose  words,  in 
many  ways  misunderstood,  have  been  rightly  interpreted,  as  far  as 
we  know,  only  by  Lampe,  1.  c.  He  translates  n  ^V  "'Pip,.]'?  \'^VT\ 
■iSiaStax.  This  is  commonly  explained,  (comp.  e.  g.  Lightfoot  on 
John  19  :  37)  :  "  Orabunt  coram  me,  quoniam  translati  fuerunt." 
According  to  the  opinion  of  the  paraphrast,  the  Jews,  with  bitter  lam- 
entations on  account  of  their  exile,  shall  turn  to  the  Lord.  But  this 
interpretation  has  no  foundation  in  the  text.  This  difficulty,  how- 
ever, is  removed  as  soon  as  '7£ob£Di<  is  understood  of  wandering  in  a 
moral  sense,  a  wandering  in  which  a  man  loses  sight  of  the  Lord ; 
comp.  S-1'Cp,  vagatio,  lusus  ;  ^7""^^,  ambulator,  otiosus  spectator.  Buxt., 
s.  V.  —  We  now  inquire  whether  this  interpretation,  which,  given  up 
by  the  later  Jews,  who  uniformly  understand  ^p_T,  in  a  literal  sense, 
found  some  defenders  in  the  Christian  church,  is  admissible.  Great 
doubt  must  be  awakened  by  the  very  fact,  that  the  verb  ipT.  never 
occurs  elsewhere  in  a  figurative  sense,  but  always  in  a  literal,  in 
which  it  is  found  even  in  this  portion,  chap,  13:  3.  The  figurative 
meaning  however  is  entirely  excluded  by  what  follows.  Were  the 
verb  "ip_n  to  be  taken  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  how  then  could  lamen- 
tation over  one  who  was  dead,  be  there  the  subject  of  discourse  ? 
How  could  it  be  compared  with  lamentation  over  the  death  of  an 
only  son,  with  that  for  King  Josiah,  who  had  been  slain  ?  It  re- 
mains, therefore,  only  to  take  the  word  in  its  usual  sense,  and  to 
seek  for  the  figure  in  the  whole  description.  God,  as  it  were,  slain 
by  the  sins  of  the  Jews ;  the  repentance  which  they  experience  for 
their  sins,  under  the  image  of  a  lamentation  for  one  who  has  been 
slain.  But  let  any  one  search  the  whole  Old  Testament  and  see 
whether  he  can  find  elsewhere  any  thing  analogous  to  this  figurative 
representation,  which  is  so  strange  and  so  militates  against  the  honor 
of  God.— It  would   be  altogether  unsuitable  to  appeal  to  the  fact, 


ZECHARIAH    12:  1.  — 13:  6.  221 

that  the  verb  3p3,  perforare,  to  pierce,  is  also  used  of  God.  For  it 
is  by  no  means  used  in  this  original,  but  in  a  figurative  sense,  to 
reproach,  (corap.  Winer,  s.  v.)  and,  even  in  this  sense,  not  connected 
immediately  with  Jehovah,  but,  for  the  sake  of  reverence,  only  with 
the  name  of  God;  conip.  Levit.  24  :  11.  Still  less  to  the  purpose  is 
I»5p^,  to  roh,  which  is  spoken  of  God,  Mai.  3  :  8.  God  might  be 
said  to  be  robbed,  in  respect  to  His  possessions  as  King  of  Israel, 
The  killing,  on  the  contrary,  refers  to  the  person.  To  these  nega- 
tive grounds,  which  refute  this  interpretation,  must  be  added  the 
positive  proofs,  which  justify  the  reference  to  the  Messiah,  viz.  the 
manifest  identity  of  the  subject,  who  is  here  slain  and  lamented, 
with  the  good  shepherd  whose  faithful  services  the  people,  according 
to  chap.  11,  reward  with  ingratitude,  who,  according  to  chap.  13:  7, 
is  slain,  and  for  whose  sake  the  people  are  visited  with  severe  judg- 
ments, until  at  last  the  remnant, ^purified  by  affliction,  turn  to  the 
Lord,  and  are  again  graciously  received.  And  finally,  it  is  support- 
ed by  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament. 

2.  Still  there  is  one  remarkable  proof,  that  the  correct  interpreta- 
tion, that  of  the  one  true  Messiah,  was  not  unknown  among  the 
older  Jews.  In  the  Talmud  of  Jerusalem,  fol.  12,  1,  ed.  Dessov. 
(comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  211)  that,  and  that  only,  is  mentioned.  '''There 
are  two  opinions,  the  one,  that  it  is  a  lamentation  on  account  of  the 
Messiah;  the  other,  that  it  is  a  lamentation  on  account  of  sinful  cor- 
ruption." This  has  been  frequently  understood,  as  though  the  one 
had  made  sinful  corruption  the  object  of  the  whole  prophecy  in  this 
verse.  It  would  then  be  inconceivable  how  this  strange  opinion 
could  arise.  But  it  is  not  so.  Both  views  coincide  in  their  refer- 
ence to  the  Messiah.  The  difference  consists,  as  is  evident  from 
a  more  accurate  view  of  the  words,  and  a  comparison  of  the  corre- 
sponding passage  in  the  Babylonish  Talmud,  only  in  the  different 
understanding  of  the  suff.  in  vS;;.  The  one  referred  it  to  the  per- 
son of  him  who  was  pierced,  the  other  understood  it  of  the  thing, 
exactly  as  Schultens  and  Dathe ;  on  account  of  it,  viz.  their  sin, 
which  either  directly,  or,  what  is  more  probable,  indirectly,  has 
caused  the  death  of  the  Messiah.  So  much  is  certain.  But  how 
these  Rabbins  explained  the  particulars  in  the  passage,  how  they 
escaped  from  the  difficulty,  which  they  must  have  found  in  the  ex- 
pression, "  They  look  upon  me  whom  they  have  pierced  ;  "  whether 
with  Symmachus  in  the  Cod.  Barberinus,  according  to  De  Rossi, 
who  has  himself  carefully  compared  this  Cod.,  they  perhaps  trans- 


■^l' 


222  ZECHARIAH  12  :  1.—  13  :  6. 

Jated  01'*'  w  i'ieyAvtriauv,  "  They  look  upon  me,  the  Lord,  loith  him," 
whom  they,  either  the  Jews  or  the  enemies,  have  pierced ;  or,  with 
several  later  Jews,  "  They  look  to  me,  they  turn  with  weeping  to 
me,"  because  they,  i.  e.  the  enemies,  have  pierced ;  we  are  unable  to 
make  out,  because  the  difference,  there  mentioned,  does  not  concern 
the  sense  of  the  whole  passage,  but  only  the  object  of  the  lamenta- 
tion. In  any  event,  however,  the  passage  is  very  important,  because 
it  shows,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  dying  Messiah  was  not  strange  to  the 
older  Jews,  and  at  the  same  time  also,  that  in  some  way  or  other 
they  connected  his  death  with  the  sin  of  the  people.  —  In  process 
of  time,  however,  this  view  was  found  inconvenient,  and  recourse 
was  had  to  the  figment  of  the  twofold  Messiah,  the  son  of  David  and 
the  son  of  Joseph,  to  the  latter  of  whom  were  referred  the  passages 
which  seem  to  treat  of  a  dying  Messiah,  (comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  210.)  This 
was  done,  in  reference  to  the  passage  before  us,  even  in  the  Baby- 
lonish Talmud,  (comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  211),  where  the  question  whether 
the  lamentation  refers  to  the  Messiah,  or  to  sin,  is  renewed,  and 
the  former  view  is  declared  as  unquestionably  correct,  with  an  ap- 
peal to  the  argument,  that  the  lamentation  must  necessarily  relate 
to  the  same  subject,  who,  according  to  the  preceding  context,  had 
been  pierced.  Among  the  later  Rabbins,  Abarbanel  (on  the  pas- 
sage) follows  this  interpretation,  who  nevertheless  elsewhere  (re- 
markable indecision  !)  advances  the  one,  here  rejected  by  himself,  of 
Kimchi  and  Jarchi,  which  will  hereafter  be  cited.  He  says  :  "  Multo 
rectior  interpretatio  ilia  est,  qua  de  Jlessia  Jilio  Josephi  vaticinium 
accipitur,  uti  paires  nostri  h.  m.  interpretaii  sunt.  Is  enim  ex  tribu 
Josephi  oriundus,  vir  summis  viribus  et  bello  exlmius  erit  dux  exerci- 
tus  del  in  bello  isto,  quo  vitam  cum  morte  commutabit."  Similar 
Abenezra  :  "  Effundam  spiritum  gratice  et  precutn  super  habitatores 
Hierosolymitanos.  Ante  vero  quam  hoc  fiat,  horribili  plaga  affici- 
cntur,  dum  Messias  fil.  Josephi  occidetur.  Et  tunc  deus  iratus  omnes 
gcntes  perdet,  quce  Hierosolymatn  venerunt.  Et  hoc  est,  quod  dici- 
tw :  et  respicient.  Tunc  respicient  omnes  gentes  ad  me,  visurcB, 
quid  illis  facturus  sim,  qui  Messiam  filium  Josephi  occiderunt." 
Finally,  this  interpretation  is  found  also  in  Jalkut  Chasdasch,  fol. 
24,  in  Glaesener  De  Gemino  Jud.  3Iessia,  p.  57  :  "ipTty  ""iriN  ''D 
nm  p  n'^n  irm  T'h  nd''  \d  nfix  t]Dv  p  rfK/o  amm  njv,  "  After 
Jonas  shall  have  been  pierced,  i.  e.  the  Messiah  Ben  Joseph,  then 
will  David  come,  i.  e.  the  Messiah  Ben  David."  It  was  now  incum- 
bent on  the  defenders  of  this  interpretation  to  solve  the  difficult  prob- 


[ 


ZECHARIAH  12  :  1 .  — 13  :  G.  223 

lem,  how  it  could  be  reconciled  with,  "  They  look  upon  me,  the 
same  whom  they  have  pierced."  In  this  endeavour  they  took  dif- 
ferent and  equally  unsuccessful  ways.  a.  They  changed  without 
hesitation  the  unpleasant  "'Sx  into  vSx.  And  thus  is  the  text  with- 
out farther  remark  cited  in  the  Talmud,  and  in  En  Israel,  p.  117. 
Thus,  according  to  a  remarkable  passage  of  Rabanus  Blaurus  contra 
JiidcBos,  n.  12,  (in  Wagenseil,  Sota,  p.  68,)  it  was  found  even  in  his 
time  (§  IX.)  in  the  margin  of  many  manuscripts  :  "  Ubi  nos  juxta 
fidcm  sci'lpturcB  sanctcR  in  persona  del  legimus  :  Et  adspicient  ad  me 
quern  conjizerunt :  illi,  quamvis  in  ipso  textu  libri,  divino  nutu  ter- 
rente,  nan  Juerint  ausi  mutare,  tamen  extrinsecus  e  latere  annotatum 
habent :  Adspicient  ad  eum,  quern  confixerunt.  Et  sic  traditnt  sids 
discipulis,  ut,  sicut  in  textu  continetur,  transscribant,  et,  sicut  foris 
annotatum  est,  legant,  ut  tcneant  videlicet,  quod  juxta  eorum  demen- 
tiam  Judm  aspiciant  ad  eum,  quern  confixerunt  Gog  et  Magog." 
In  the  thirteenth  century  this  reading  had  forced  its  way  into  the  text 
of  many  manuscripts.  Comp.  Raim.  Martini,  p.  411.  Lips. :  "  Nota, 
quod  aliqui  Judcei,  hujusmodi  tam  evidens  sacrm  scriptures  testimo- 
nium sufferre  non  valentes,  literam  in  hoc  loco  falsificant,  et  dicunt 
rSx,  ut  sic  non  de  deo,  sed  de  alio  possit  intelligi;  "  comp.  the  same, 
p.  855,  where  he  appeals,  in  reply,  to  the  ancient  manuscripts,  the 
whole  body  of  which  have  'Sx.  The  reading  rSx  also  actually  oc- 
curs in  49  Codd.  Kennic,  and  in  13  De  Rossi,  besides  in  the  origi- 
nal text  of  several  Rabbinical  writings,  while  in  their  editions  it  is 
in  part  expunged  ;  comp.  De  Rossi,  1.  c.  That  the  reading,  'bx  is 
correct,  surely  needs  no  extensive  proof.  It  is  grammatically  the 
more  difficult ;  it  is  opposed  to  the  favorite  opinions  of  the  Jews  ;  it 
is  found  in  all  the  translations,  whose  testimony  is  here  the  more 
complete,  since  even  those  oi  Aq.,  Syimn.,  Thcod.  are  preserved  in  a 
Scholion  of  the  Cod.  Barber. ;  it  is  found  in  by  far  the  most  numer- 
ous and  best  manuscripts.  —  More  difficult  is  the  question,  whether 
the  reading  vSx  originated  from  doctrinal  interest,  and  affords  an 
example  of  a  corruption  of  the  text,  attempted  by  the  Jews,  as  Wa- 
genseil especially,  1.  c,  has  endeavoured  to  show,  while  Hackspan 
(Oe  Usu  Librr.  Rabbinic,  p.  295),  and  De  Rossi,  assert  the  con- 
trary. We  must  decide  in  favor  of  the  former.  It  is  true,  indeed, 
that  examples  are  not  wanting,  in  which  the  Keri,  in  passages  where 
the  construction  is  suddenly  changed  from  the  first  person  to  the 
third,  endeavours  to  restore  grammatical  correctness  ;  but,  as  yet, 
they  did  not  venture  to  receive  these  proposed  emendations  into  the 


224  ZECHARIAH  12 :  1.  — 13  :  6. 

text ;  here  where  the  reading  rSx  first  meets  us  in  the  Talmud,  its 
connexion  with  the  interest  of  the  Jews  is  too  obvious  ;  in  like 
manner,  as  in  the  Jalkut,  where,  in  order  to  be  able  to  refer  the 
passage  to  the  Messiah  Ben  Joseph,  Sx  is  read,  "  to  him  whom  they 
have  pierced,"  which  deviation  from  the  Talmud  clearly  shows  how 
little  they  were  induced  by  external  reasons  to  depart  from  the  re- 
ceived interpretation.  Had  the  emendation  been  occasioned  here 
by  the  grammatical  anomaly,  why  did  it  occur  to  no  one  instead  of 
vS;r  to  read  'S^'  ?  When  De  Rossi  urges,  against  the  supposition  of 
an  intended  corruption,  that  no  Jewish  polemic  refutes  the  Christian 
interpretation  by  appealing  to  the  reading  vSn,  this  fact  might  easily 
be  turned  against  him.  It  furnishes  a  clear  testimony  to  their  evil 
conscience  ;  had  they  attained  to  the  reading  vSx  in  a  lawful  man- 
ner, they  would  not  have  failed  to  appeal  to  it.  They  use  it,  how- 
ever, cautiously,  more  for  their  own  quiet  than  for  controversy 
against  their  enemies  ;  and,  as  they  saw  that  the  object  could  not  be 
accomplished,  that  the  corruption  could  not  possibly  be  introduced 
into  all  manuscripts,  and  that  attention  was  awakened  to  the  subject, 
they  entirely  relinquished  this  reading  and  resorted  to  less  doubtful 
methods.  6.  They  gave  to  1!^X  ns*  another  meaning  :  "  They  look 
with  weeping  to  me,  because  they,  the  heathen,  had  pierced  him, 
the  son  of  Joseph."  This  understanding  of  "i^x  nx  requires  a  clos- 
er examination,  because  it  is  repeated  by  recent  interpreters.  That 
1^>i>  ^*?  cannot  mean  precisely  because  needs  no  proof  Still  the  as- 
sumed sense  might  in  two  respects  be  defended  with  some  plausibility. 
First  by  the  assumption  of  an  accus.  absol. :  "  They  look  to  me,  in 
reference  to  him  whom  they  have  pierced."  But  the  alleged  ac.  ahs. 
is  in  Hebrew  a  pure  invention  of  the  empirical  grammarians,  as  any 
one  may  easily  convince  himself  by  a  view  of  the  examples  cited  in 
its  favor  by  Gesenius,  Lehrg.  p.  725,  and  Comm.  zu  Jcs.  53  :  8.  Does 
not  the  ace,  of  the  noun  in  such  passages  as  Is.  8  :  13 ;  "  The  Lord 
of  Hosts,  him  shall  ye  sanctify,"  depend  on  the  same  transitive  verb 
as  the  pronoun  ?  Among  the  cited  passages,  however,  with  the 
exception  of  Is.  53  :  8,  the  interpretation  of  which  is  plainly  erro- 
neous, there  is  not  one,  where  such  a  dependence  cannot  be  shown, 
unlike  the  passage  before  us,  or  where  the  apparent  accus.  absol.  is 
not  one  altogether  usual,  and  explained  from  a  confounding  of  two 
constructions  as  Zech.  8  :  17  :  'nxJK^  T^x;  n-?«-b2)-n{)'  ^^,  a  combi- 
nation of,  "  all  this  I  hate,"  and  "  all  this  is  that  which  I  hate.''  — 
Another  way  of  understanding  it  is,  "  And  they  look  to  him,  that 


ZECHARIAH  12  .  1.  —  13  :  6.  225 

they  have  pierced."  It  is  true,  that  y0.  nx  sometimes  thus  occurs 
e.  g.  Ezek.  36  :  27  :  "  I  will  make,  nSn  '[3^3  "itJ/N-nN,  that  ye  walk 
in  my  laws."  But  in  this  case,  as  also  in  all  the  passages  where  this 
construction  occurs,  (comp.  1  Sam.  2  :  22-24,  11:  19,  Esth.  5  :  11,) 
a  transitive  verb  must  precede,  nx  is  here,  as  always,  a  sign  of  the 
accus.,  and  the  accus.  is  governed  by  the  transitive  verb  ;  the  whole 
proposition  following  r\'A  is  treated  as  a  noun  in  the  accus.,  see  e.  g. 
the  cited  passage  of  Ezekiel,  i.  q.,  "  I  will  make  your  walking  in 
my  laws,"  comp.  Ewald,  p.  648.  Accordingly,  therefore,  that  is 
never  the  signification,  but  only  in  certain  cases,  with  which  the 
passage  before  us  has  nothing  in  common,  the  sense  of  li??X.  nx.  — 
It  is  scarcely  worth  the  trouble  to  remark,  against  the  already  obso- 
lete explanation  of  the  Messiah  Ben  Joseph  in  general,  that  it  is 
a  mere  invention  of  the  later  Jews,  which  is  shown,  even  by  the  re- 
mark of  Kimchi  against  the  reference  of  this  passage  to  him,  "  Sed 
hoc  intcrpretamf.ntum  miror  cur  ita  occultai'int,  ncque  (jus  generalitcr 
memincrint,"  never  to  have  obtained  general  approbation,  and  which 
the  more  intelligent,  either  like  Maimonides  by  their  silence,  or  like 
Manasseh  Ben  Israel  expressly,  reject.  It  is  of  more  importance  to 
give  prominence  to  a  remark,  which  concerns  not  this  interpretation 
alone,  but  the  whole  of  the  kind  to  which  it  belongs.  The  looking 
upon  him  who  was  pierced,  the  loud  lamentation  over  his  death,  is 
here  represented,  as  a  consequence  of  the  spirit  of  grace  poured  out 
upon  Israel,  as  a  sign  of  his  genuine  conversion,  the  fruits  of  which 
are  described  in  chap.  13:  1-6.  But  how  can  the  lamentation 
over  a  leader,  slain  by  enemies,  be  represented  as  a  consequence  of 
conversion  1 

3.  Still  wider  do  those  err,  who,  as  Kimchi,  Jarchi,  and  Manas- 
seh Ben  Israel,  (in  Hulsius,  Theol.  Jud.  p.  513),  by  him  who  was 
pierced,  understand  every  Israelite,  who  fell  in  the  war  against  Gog 
and  Magog :  "  Omnes  lament abuntur  ob  unitis  interitu?n,  ac  si  inte- 
ger exercitus  ccbsus  esset."  These  also  follow,  partly  the  false  read- 
ing vSx,  and  partly  give  to  "i^X  nx  the  untenable  meaning  because, 
as  Kimchi  explains  it  by  in^3.  They  are  also  liable  to  the  last 
objection  urged  against  the  foregoing  explanation.  Nor  can  they 
justify  the  unnatural  supposition  of  a  change  of  the  subject  in  ^X^^^, 
and  the  omission  of  the  stiff.  This  unfortunate  explanation  has  been 
occasioned  especially  by  the  fear  of  yielding  too  much  to  the  Chris- 
tians, by  interpreting  the  passage  of  the  Messiah  Ben  Joseph. 
There  was  the  more  reason  for  this  fear,  since  they  felt  how  danger- 

voi,.  II.  29 


226  ZECHARIAH   12  :  1  —  13  :  6. 

ous  it  must  be  to  attempt  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  fictitious  Mes- 
siah Ben  Joseph,  since,  if  they  failed,  the  reference  of  the  passage  to 
Messiah  Ben  David,  could  not  be  avoided,  so  long  as  the  Messianic 
interpretation  in  general  prevailed.  How  strong  this  fear  was,  ap- 
pears from  the  circumstance,  that,  in  a  Polish  edition  of  Jarchi,  the 
passage  where  he  designates  the  explanation  of  the  Messiah  Ben 
Joseph,  as  ancient  and  confirmed  in  the  Talmud,  is  omitted  ;  comp. 
Sleph.  le  Moyne  ad  Jerem.  23  :  6,  p.  134. 


2.    By  the   Christians. 

In  the  Christian  church,  as  could  not  but  be  expected,  the  refer- 
ence to  Christ  has  always  prevailed.  It  is  therefore  superfluous  to 
cite  the  numerous  names  of  its  defenders,  among  whom  even  J.  D. 
Michaelis  on  the  passage  belongs,  although  he  ungrammatically  ex- 
plains :  "  They  will  look  upon  me,  and  upon  him,  whom  they  have 
pierced."  We  shall  occupy  ourselves  only  with  the  exceptions  from 
the  rule,  those  who  give  up  the  Messianic  interpretation  ;  and  we 
can  here  be  brief,  since  the  refutation  is  already  contained  in  what 
precedes. 

1.  In  the  footsteps  of  the  Seventy,  and  the  Chaldee,  though  inde- 
pendent of  them,  follows  in  a  measure  Calvin  on  the  passage,  and 
on  John  19  :  37  :  "  Metaplwrice  liic  accipitur  confixio  pro  continua 
irritaiione ,  ac  si  dicer et :  JudcBos  sua  pervicacia  jfuisse  quasi  accinc- 
tos  ad  helium,  ut  deum  pungerent  ac  coiifigerent  sua  malitia,  vet  telis 
rebellionis  sucb.  —  Sensus  —  hie  est :  Quum  Judcei  secure  multis  mo- 
dis  provocassent  dcuni,  aliquando  pcBnitentiam  cuturos,  quia  soil, 
incipient  terreri  clei  judicio,  quum  prius  nemo  eorum  cogitaret  de 
reddenda  vitce  ratiojie."  Still  the  essential  difference  between  Cal- 
vin and  the  Jewish  and  Rationalist  interpreters,  who  advance  this 
explanation,  is  not  to  be  overlooked.  According  to  him,  the  proph- 
ecy is  indeed  in  the  first  instance  to  be  understood  figuratively,  and 
referred  to  God  ;  it  happened  however  by  a  special  divine  guidance, 
that  it  was  also  literally  fulfilled  in  Christ,  united  with  God  by  unity 
of  being,  that  his  history  constituted  a  visible  symbol  oi  its  contents. 
That  he  here  had  in  view  a  much  closer  relation  of  the  prophecy  to 
the  fulfilment  in  Christ,  than  the  so-called  mystical  sense  of  Gro- 
tius,  which  properly,  as  Reuss,  Opuscr.   I.  p.  74  ff.,  has   already 


ZECHARIAH  12:  I.  — 13:0.  227 

shown,  was  a  mere  shadow  without  the  substance,  appears  from  the 
whole  of  the  following  explanation,  in  which  his  figurative  under- 
standing of  the  passage  seems  entirely  to  disappear.  The  explana- 
tion of  Calvin  in  former  times  met  with  general  contradiction  ; 
Lampe  bitterly  complains,  that  the  private  view  of  Calvin  was  attrib- 
uted to  the  reformed  church,  with  a  view  to  cast  reproach  upon  it. 
Besides  an  anonymous  writer  in  Martini,  Dc  Tribus  Elohim,  c.  112, 
and  the  Socinian  Smalcius,  it  found  a  defender  only  in  Grotius. 
From  him  it  has  been  eagerly  borrowed  by  recent  interpreters,  as 
Rosenmiiller,  Eichhorn,  Theiner. 

2.  The  interpretation  of  the  Messiah  Ben  Joseph  has  been  of  late 
so  far  defended,  as  that  several  refer  the  prophecy  to  the  death  of  a 
distinguished  Jewish  commander.  Ja.hn,Einl.  II.  2,  p.  671,  hit  upon 
Judas  Maccabeus  and  translates :  "  They  will  look  on  Jehovah  on 
account  of  him,  whom  they  have  pierced,"  and  thus  bears  testimony 
himself  against  his  interpretation.  A  commander  of  the  Jews,  who 
lost  his  life  in  that  war  (who  he  was,  is  uncertain,)  is  conjectured  by 
Bauer,  Schol.  ad  h.  I.  He  translates,  following  the  interpretation  of 
"IKJN  nx  as  ace.  absoL,  which  has  already  been  shown  to  be  inadmis- 
sible :  "  Respicient  ad  me,  deum,  opis  implorandtJB  causa,  quod  atti- 
net  ad  eum,  quern  transfixerunt."  In  favor  of  the  same  view  Ber- 
tholdt  also  seems  to  decide,  Einl.  IV.  p.  1716. 

3.  The  merit  of  finding  out  a  new  interpretation  belongs,  among 
the  non-Jewish,  and  at  the  same  time  non-Messianic  interpreters, 
only  to  Vogel.  He  asserts  on  Cappelli  Crit.  Sacr.  I.  p.  140,  that 
the  prophet  speaks  not  of  the  Messiah,  but  of  himself! 


V.  11.  "  At  that  time  there  shall  be  a  great  lamentation  in  Jeru- 
salem, like  the  lamentation  of  Hadadrimmon  in  the  valley  of  Megid- 
do."  The  prophet  here  exerts  himself  to  the  utmost  in  order  to 
make  the  lamentation  appear  as  great,  and  as  general,  as  possible, 
and  therefore  to  refute  every  reference  of  his  prophecy  to  any  event, 
which  was  only  a  prelude  of  its  proper  object.  The  lamentation 
of  Hadadrimmon  was  here  not  a  lamentation,  which  happened  at 
Hadadrimmon,  but  which  belonged  to  that  place,  so  far  as  there 
was  the  object  of  it,  as  there  the  pious  King  Josiah  was  slain.  That 
the  lamentation  over  him,  who  was  pierced,  is  compared  particularly 


228  ZECHARIAH  12:  1—13:6. 

with  that  over  the  death  of  this  king,  appears  from  the  following  rea- 
sons. 1 .  The  lamentation,  which  the  prophet  here  takes  for  the 
comparison,  must  have  been  one  of  the  most  distressing  that  had 
ever  occurred.  This  was  evidently  that  for  Josiah.  According  to 
2  Chron.  35  :  25,  Jeremiah  composed  an  elegy  on  his  death  ;  others 
were  composed  and  sung  by  male  and  female  singers.  These  be- 
came current  in  Israel  as  popular  songs,  and  continued  so  until  the 
time  of  the  writer  of  the  Chronicles.  They  were  received  into  a 
collection  of  songs  of  lamentations  concerning  the  mournful  fate  of 
the  nation,  which  after  the  death  of  Josiah  was  rapidly  hurried  to 
its  ruin.  Herein  we  have  the  proof,  as  well  of  the  greatness  of  the 
lamentation,  as  also  of  a  continued  lively  remembrance  of  it  in  later 
times,  until  after  the  exile.  2.  The  subject  of  the  lamentation  must 
have  been  a  pious  king,  and  the  comparison  becomes  the  more  suit- 
able, when  he  is  one,  who  in  a  certain  respect  died  for  the  sins  of 
the  people.  Both  of  these  were  fully  realized  in  Josiah.  He  was, 
according  to  2  Kings  23  :  25,  &c.,  of  all  the  kings  of  Judah,  the 
most  pious ;  but  still  God  was  not  therefore  moved  to  change  the 
decree  of  destruction.  He  died,  not  so  much  a  sacrifice  to  the 
improvidence,  with  which  he  engaged  in  a  war  with  the  more  pow- 
erful king  of  Egypt,  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  sins  of  his  people.  Had 
these  not  called  forth  the  vengeance  of  God,  he  would  have  pre- 
served him,  either  from  this  improvidence  itself,  or  from  the  conse- 
quences of  it.  3.  The  comparison  requires  the  person  slain"  to  be  a 
king  of  Judah,  and  lamented  at  Jerusalem.  "  At  Jerusalem  "  is  plainly 
to  be  supplied  also  in  the  second  member  :  "  The  lamentation  will 
be  great  at  Jerusalem,  as  there  the  lamentation  oi  Hadadrimmon  was 
great,"  the  gen.  precisely  as  in  d;:?XP  ^^"■H.,  "  the  reproach  from 
Egypt."  Both  these  happened  in  the  case  of  Josiah.  Mortally  wound- 
ed, the  king  was  brought  back  to  Jerusalem,  where,  immediately 
after  his  arrival,  the  last  spark  of  life  was  extinguished,  and  now 
began  the  lamentation  for  him,  the  beloved  one,  with  whom  the 
Theocracy  seemed  to  be  borne  to  its  grave ;  comp,  2  Chron.  35  :  22. 
The  apparent  contradiction  between  this  passage  and  that  in  the 
books  of  Kings,  which  makes  Josiah  die  at  Megiddo,  is  to  be  ex- 
plained merely  from  the  effort  at  brevity  in  the  latter,  who,  in  har- 
mony with  his  design,  is  throughout  less  accurate,  than  the  writer  of 
Chronicles,  in  reference  to  external  and  unimportant  circumstances. 
It  was  not  a  matter  of  moment  to  him,  that  the  king  still  retained  a 
feeble  spark  of  life.     He  caused  him  to  die  at  Megiddo,  because 


ZECHARI AH  12 ;  1  —  13  :  6  229 

there  he  received  his  mortal  wound.  4.  The  place  accurately  coin- 
cides. Verbally  the  same  as  here,  it  is  said  in  Chronicles,  Josiah 
was  pierced  through,  nj??  nj'pDS.  The  difference  is  only  that  here 
the  place  is  especially  designated,  in  which  Josiah  received  his  mor- 
tal wound.  Grotius  :  "  Si  cut  ilia  Darii  ad  Arbella,  ah  Arbellitide 
regionc^  et  ad  Gaugamela  ex  oppido  aut  vico  propinqtio."  That 
Hadadrimmon  was  situated  in  the  valley  of  Megiddo  or  Jezreel  is 
expressly  testified  by  Jerome  :  "  Hadadrimmon  whs  est  jtixta  Jez- 
reelem,  hoc  olim  vocabnlo  nuncupata,  et  hodie  vocatur  Maximianopolis 
in  campo  Mageddon,  in  quo  Josias  rex  Justus  a  Pharaonc  cognomento 
Necho  vidneratus  est."  That  it  is  not  elsewhere  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  was  entirely  unknown  to  the  Seventy,  as  their 
understanding  of  the  word  as  an  appellative  shows,  can  be  explain- 
ed either  from  the  mere  insignificance  of  the  place,  or  with  Wich- 
manshausen,  De  Planctu  Hadadrimmon  in  the  Thes.  N.  Theol. 
Phil.  I.  p.  1107  ff,  from  the  fact  that  Hadadrimmon,  decus  grana- 
torum,  was  less  the  proper  name  of  the  place,  than  an  honorable 
epithet.  —  Notwithstanding  these  plain  reasons,  there  have  not  been 
wanting  those,  who  have  denied  the  reference  to  Josiah,  or  have 
connected  still  another  therewith.  The  latter  course  is  that  of  the 
Chaldee  interpreter,  who  paraphrases  :  "  Sicid  planctus  Ahab,  filii 
Homri,  qucm  occidit  Hadadrimvion,  Jilius  Tahrimmon,  in  Ramath 
Gilcad,  et  sicut  planctus  Josicb,  Jilii  Amon,  quern  occidit  Pharao 
claudus  in  valle  Mageddon."  He  understands  Hadadrimmon  as  a 
proper  name  of  the  Syrian  king,  who  slew  Ahab,  borrowed,  accord- 
ing to  the  prevailing  custom  of  the  Syrians  and  Babylonians,  from 
the  name  of  an  idol,  Rimmon.  The  lamentation  of  Hadadrimmon, 
according  to  him,  is  that  caused  by  Hadadrimmon.  Should  this 
reference  in  general  be  established,  it  must  be  the  exclusive  one  ; 
for  how  a  second  can  be  reconciled  with  the  words  of  the  text,  as 
soon  as  Hadadrimmon  is  understood  as  the  proper  name  of  an  indi- 
vidual, is  inconceivable.  In  fact  it  appears  as  though  the  Chaldee 
paraphrast  has  combined  both  references,  only  because  he  was  un- 
certain which  of  the  two  to  choose,  and  not  because  he  regarded 
both  as  equally  valid.  That  the  exclusive  reference  to  Ahab,  how- 
ever, is  untenable  should  need  no  proof  Of  all  the  characteristics 
above  mentioned,  one  only  belongs  to  him,  that  of  dying  in  the 
valley  of  Megiddo.  The  discourse  cannot  be  of  a  general  and  pain- 
ful lamentation  over  this  ungodly  king  of  apostate  Israel.  He  was 
so  generally  hated,  that  no  man  would  wash  his  unclean  blood  from 


230  ZECHARIAH  12 :  1.  —  13  .  6. 

his  cheeks,  and  for  this,  as  a  disgraceful  task,  it  was  necessary  to  hire 
vile  persons.  Omitting  other  still  more  absurd  opinions,  (comp. 
die  Widerleg.  ders.  bei  Wichm.  p.  1109  ff.),  we  mention  only  that 
ofHitzig,  Stud.  u.  Crit.  1830,  I.  p.  29.  He  refers  the  passage  to  the 
death  of  Ahaziah,  2  Kings  9  :  27,  a  reference  which  Melancthon, 
Opp.  t.  II.  p.  539,  ("  Similitudo  sumta  est  ab  interitu  duorum  regum, 
OcJtosicB  et  JosicB,  qui  ambo  non  procul  a  Megiddoh  interfecti 
sunt")  combines  with  that  to  Josiah.  But  we  need  only  compare 
the  marks,  which  have  been  exhibited,  in  order  to  see,  that  this  ref- 
erence of  Hitzig  has  been  adopted  only  from  prejudice,  to  favor  his 
false  hypothesis  concerning  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  second 
part.  Ahaziah  was  any  thing  but  a  pious  king.  "  He  walked,"  it  is 
said,  2  Kings  8  :  26,  "  in  the  way  of  the  house  of  Ahab,  and  did 
evil  in  the  eye  of  the  Lord,  like  the  house  of  Ahab,  for  he  was  allied 
in  marriage  with  the  house  of  Ahab."  According  to  a  righteous 
retribution  of  God,  his  connexion  with  the  house  of  Ahab  brought 
him  to  his  death.  We  will  not  deny  that  the  usual  lamentation  was 
made  over  him,  but  surely  not  such  an  one,  as  is  here  the  subject  of 
discourse,  not  a  mere  ceremony,  as  the  following  context  shows,  but 
proceeding  from  the  heart,  not  p&rformed  by  hired  persons,  but  by 
the  whole  people,  and  so  painful  that  each  one  lamented  as  though 
he  had  lost  his  nearest  relation.  Such  a  lamentation  is  made  only 
for  the  father  of  his  country,  and  in  Israel  such  a  person  was  only 
the  true  Theocratic  prince.  The  feeling  on  the  death  of  Aha- 
ziah, smitten  of  God,  who  had  not  time  during  his  short  reign  to 
render  great  service  to  his  people,  was  certainly  not  anguish. 
Lastly,  Ahaziah  received  his  mortal  wound,  not  at  Hadadrimmon, 
but  in  another  place,  expressly  mentioned,  chap.  9  :  27.  We  relin- 
quish, therefore,  gladly  to  the  author  of  this  hypothesis  the  joy  of 
having  "  neutralized  "  by  it  the  reference  to  Josiah.  —  We  only 
remark  how  decisively  the  verse  refutes  the  reference  of  the  forego- 
ing to  Jehovah,  and  establishes  that  to  the  Messiah.  How  absurd  were 
the  comparison  of  the  lamentation  over  the  Most  High  God  offended, 
with  that  over  the  King  Josiah  slain  !  How  well  suited,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  the  latter  to  be  a  type  of  the  Messiah  !  He  was  slain  on 
account  of  the  sin  of  his  people  ;  his  reign  was  the  last  gracious 
look  of  the  Lord  ;  henceforth  inexpressible  misery  followed  ;  the 
lamentation  for  his  death  arose  from  the  mingled  feeling  of  love,  and 
of  anguish  for  their  own  sins,  which  had  caused  him  to  be  sacri- 
ficed. * 


\ 


ZECHARIAH  12;  1,-13:  G.  231 

V.  12-14.  The  reason,  why  the  prophet  so  fully  describes  the 
lamentation  for  him  who  was  pierced,  is  given  by  Calvin  as  follows  : 
"  Videtur  frustra  plus  verhorum  consumere  Zach.,  quant  opus  sit, 
quia  plus  satis  jjrolixus  est  in  re  clara.  Sed  attendere  oportet  ad 
pondus  ipsum  :  fuit  enim  incredible,  posse  ex  gente  ilia  aliquos  resi- 
piscere,  quum  omnes  fere  dati  esscnt  in  reprohum  sensum.  Quis 
enim  %mquam  putasset  adhuc  esse  locum  gratice  dei,  ubi,  quantum  in 
se  erat,  omnes  a  minimo  usque  ad  maximum  conati  fuissent  Christum 
dcmergere  in  tenebras?  "  But,  together  with  this  general  design,  a 
special  and  twofold  object  appears  in  this  description.  1.  To  repre- 
sent the  lamentation  of  Israel  as  real,  and  not  ceremonial ;  his  con- 
version as  inward  and  genuine.  The  prophet  accomplishes  this 
object  by  continuing  the  figurative  representation  he  had  begun, 
and  causing  every  family,  and  again  in  every  family,  the  men  and 
women,  to  mourn  apart.  It  is  thus  intimated  that  every  family,  and 
every  division  of  the  same,  would  mourn,  as  if  they  had  to  lament 
the  death  of  one  of  their  own  members.  Next,  his  object  was  to 
represent  the  lamentation  as  strongly  as  possible,  as  extending 
through  the  whole  people  ;  the  conversion,  not  perhaps  as  relating  to 
a  few,  as  at  the  coming  of  Christ  in  humiliation,  and  shortly  after 
that  of  the  most  miserable  sheep,  who  esteena  the  good  shepherd, 
chap.  11  :  11,  but  as  a  national  affair.  To  accomplish  this  object, 
the  prophet  mentions  first,  two  chief  tribes,  and  connects  with  them, 
in  order  to  show  that  the  conversion  would  extend  from  beginning 
to  end,  two  of  their  chief  families,  and  then  joins- with  them,  in  order 
to  express  the  idea  of  the  whole  of  the  people,  all  the  remaining  fam- 
ilies. And  thus,  like  Paul,  Rom.  11  :  26,  he  makes  all  Israel  to  be 
saved.  V.  12.  "And  the  land  mourns  every  family  apart,  the  fami- 
ly of  the  house  of  David  apart,  and  their  wives  apart,  the  family 
of  the  house  of  Nathan  apart,  and  their  wives  apart."  V.  13. 
"  The  family  of  the  house  of  Levi  apart,  and  their  wives  apart,  the 
family  of  the  house  of  Shimei  apart,  and  their  wives  apart."  V.  14. 
"  All  the  remaining  families,  every  family  apart,  and  their  wives 
apart."  —  In  respect  to  the  nearest  determination  of  the  families, 
which  the  prophet  here  particularly  mentions,  as  participating  in  the 
lamentation  for  the  Messiah,  the  interpreters  widely  differ.  At 
first  view  the  hypothesis  of  Jerome  is  very  plausible  :  '•  In  David 
regia  tribus  accipitur,  h.  e.  Judah.  In  Nathan  prophetcdis  ordo 
describitur.  Levi  refertur  ad  sacer dotes  ex  quo  ortum  est  sacerdo- 
tiitm.     In  Simei  doctores  accipiuntur ;  ex  hac  enim  tribu  magistro- 


232  ZECHARIAH  12 :  1.  —  13  :  6. 

rum  agmina  puUularunt.  Reliquas  tribus  tacuit,  qu(B  non  habent 
aliquod  privilegium  dignitatis.  But  a  closer  examination  shows 
this  view  to  be  wholly  untenable.  The  chief  objection  is,  that,  by  the 
family  of  Shimei,  the  tribe  of  Simeon  cannot  possibly  be  understood. 
For,  1.  The  patronymic  of  Simeon  is  not  "'^'.pty,  but  Shimeoni,  Josh. 
21  :  4,  1  Chron.  27  :  16.  And,  2.  The  tribe  of  Simeon  is  inappro- 
priate here,  where  those  are  mentioned,  who  enjoy  a  preeminence. 
This  was  so  far  from  being  the  case,  that  he  did  not  even,  like  all 
the  other  tribes,  that  of  Levi  excepted,  who  enjoyed  instead  a  rich 
prerogative,  possess  a  district  of  his  own.  That  from  him  proceeded 
the  body  of  magistrates  is  a  Jewish  fiction,  whose  origin  can  easily 
be  pointed  out.  The  Jerusalem  Targum  paraphrases,  Gen.  49  :  7  ; 
"  Dividam  tribum  Shhneonis,  ut  sint  positi  doctores  legis  in  ecclesia 
Jacobi  et  dispergam  tribum  Levi ;  "  comp.  other  Jewish  passages  in 
Heidegger,  Hist.  Patriarch.  II.  p.  484.  In  this  passage  of  the  bless- 
ing of  Jacob,  we  have  the  origin  of  the  fable.  The  Rabbins,  not 
considering  that  it  is  already  a  blessing  for  a  tribe  to  belong  to  the 
people  of  God,  and  not  to  be  expelled  from  among  them,  inferred 
from :  "  Jacob  blessed  them,"  Gen.  49  :  28,  that  in  the  discourse  of 
Jacob  a  special  blessing  must  be  contained  for  each  individual  tribe. 
The  declaration  to  Simeon  appeared  now,  not  to  contain  any  such  ;  but 
they  suffered  themselves  to  be  thereby  the  less  perplexed,  since  the 
apparent  curse  upon  Levi,  contained  in  the  same  verse,  was  turned 
into  a  blessing.  With  respect  to  the  especial  determination  of  the 
blessing  for  Simeon,  they  supposed  it  must  surely  be  analogous  to  . 
that  of  Levi,  because  a  dispersion  in  Jacob  was  in  like  manner  an- 
nounced to  both.  They  caused,  therefore,  the  tribe  of  Simeon  to 
share  in  the  office  of  teachers,  with  the  tribe  of  Levi,  those  of  a  later 
period  at  least  with  a  certain  kind  of  subordination,  as  e.  g.  Jarchi 
makes  only  the  secretaries  and  schoolmasters  proceed  from  the  tribe 
of  Simeon.  We  need  scarcely  mention,  that  such  an  order  of 
teachers  from  the  tribe  of  Simeon  is  wholly  unknown  to  history. 
—  The  key  to  a  right  view  is  furnished  by  correctly  determin- 
ing the  family  of  Shimei.  This  can  be  done  with  certainty  from 
Num.  3:  18,  sq.  Levi  had  three  sons,  Gershom,  Kahath,  Merari. 
Gershom  two  sons,  Libni  and  Schimei.  The  fapiily  of  the  latter 
is  named,  verse  21,  exactly  as  here,  'l^ptyn  nnsiB'p,  the  family  of 
the  Shimcitc.  Accordingly  an  individual,  and  indeed  a  subordi- 
nate family  of  the  same,  is  here  associated  with  the  whole  tribe 
of  Levi.     No  doubt  now  remains,  that  the  family  of  the  house  of 


ZECHARIAH  12  :  I.  —  13  :  6.  233 

Nathan,  also,  cannot  be  the  posterity  of  the  prophet  in  the  time  of 
David,  nor  still  less  the  prophetic  order,  which,  as  not  being  de- 
scended from  Nathan,  cannot  possibly  be  designated  as  his  family. 
The  family  of  Nathan  must  rather  be  a  branch  of  the  family  of 
David,  in  like  manner  as  that  of  Shimei  is  a  branch  of  that  of  Levi, 
It  is  therefore  evident,  that  the  prophet  intended  the  family  of  Na- 
than, a  son  of  David,  who  is  mentioned  2  Sam.  5  :  14,  Luke  3:31; 
that  among  the  sons  of  David  he  mentions  precisely  him,  happened, 
because  Nathan,  like  Shimei,  was  only  a  founder  of  a  subordinate 
family.  We  have,  therefore,  the  two  chief  families  in  the  earlier 
Theocracy,  the  kingly  and  the  priestly,  and,  joined  with  them,  two 
of  their  subdivisions,  in  order  to  show  that  the  conversion  of  every 
family  would  extend  to  all  its  members. 


Chap.  13. 

V.  1.  "  At  that  time  a  fountain  shall  be  opened  for  the  house  of 
David  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  for  sin  and  for  unclean- 
ness."  The  penitential  sorrow  of  Israel  will  not  be  in  vain,  as  in- 
deed it  cannot  be,  since  it  has  been  awakened  in  him  by  the  Lord. 
Calvin:  "  Summa  est,  deumfore  exorabilem  Judceis,  ubi  ita  affecti 
fuerint  sincero  dolore,  et  paratam  illis  fore  i'econciliationem,  quia 
dominus  ab  omni  inquinamento  eos  ptirgabit.  —  Quamvis  modis 
omnibus  sese  inquinaverint  Judcei,  ita  ut  merito  fceteant  coram  dei 
ocnlis,  et  detestabilis  sit  eorum  immtmdities,  tamen  fontem  illis  fore 
paratum,  quo  se  purgent,  ut  scil.  prodcant  in  conspectum  dei  puri 
et  mnndi"  The  fountain  is  the  divine  grace,  which  imparts  to  the 
penitent  people  the  forgiveness  of  sin  ;  the  "water  here  is  not,  as  else- 
where, represented  as  assuaging  thirst,  but  as  purifying.  The  open 
fountain,  according  to  most  interpreters,  is  here  contrasted  with  one 
shut  up,  whose  water  is  accessible  only  to  the  possessor,  the  'I'l}?!  hi 
and  D^nn  |^^o,  wherewith.  Cant.  4 :  12,  the  lover  compares  the  be- 
l0"ved,  whose  loveliness  is  for  him  alone.  But  more  correctly  Schul- 
tens,  Animadvv.  Philol.  p.  549,  scaturiet  fons.  The  fountain  is 
shut  up  so  long  as  it  is  concealed  in  the  stones  :  it  is  opened  when 
it  breaks  forth.  Parallel  is  Is.  41  :  18  :  "I  will  open,  nn3J>?,  on  the 
high  places  streams."  35:6,  D'Snfi  D\?3  i;;p^j. — On  n^p,  comp. 
Ezek.  36 :  17,  Is.  64  :  5. 

VOL.  II.  30 


234  ZECHARIAH  12:1.-13:0. 

V.  2.  The  consequence  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  a  new  life  of 
righteousness  and  holiness,  a  renunciation,  effected  by  the  aid  of  the 
Lord,  of  all  that  opposes  his  revealed  will.  "  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  in  that  day,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  that  I  abolish  the  names 
of  the  idols  out  of  the  land,  and  they  shall  not  he  mentioned  any 
more ;  and  also  the  prophets,  and  the  unclean  spirit,  will  I  remove 
from  the  land."  Calvin  :  "  Sicut  solis  exortu  fugantur  tenebrcB  et 
apparet  distincta  rerum  omnium  fades,  sic  etiam,  ubi  deus  emergit 
per  sui  verbi  doctrinam,  necesse  est  procul  facessere  omnes  Satance 
imposturas."  The  removal  of  every  thing  ungodly  from  Israel,  now 
again  become  the  covenant  people,  the  prophet  here  expresses  by 
the  abolition  of  the  two  manifestations  of  ungodliness,  idolatry  and 
false  prophecy,  which  in  the  former  Theocracy  had  most  prevailed, 
and  we  need  not  hence  infer  their  prevalence  in  the  time  of  the 
prophet,  or  in  the  future  which  he  describes.  These  particular  man- 
ifestations are  only  accidental,  the  substance  is  ungodliness,  which  is 
always  the  same,  whether  it  reveals  itself  as  idolatry  and  false  proph- 
ecy, as  in  this  instance,  or  as  Pharisaical  self-righteousness.  This 
supposition  can  here  cause  the  less  difficulty,  since  we  have  so  many 
striking  examples  of  a  designation  of  the  future  by  the  past  or  pres- 
ent, agreeing  with  it  in  substance,  though  differing  in  form.  The 
extirpation  of  the  names,  "  And  they  shall  no  more  be  mentioned," 
is  a  frequent  designation  of  the  most  complete  extinction ;  comp. 
e.  g.  Hos.  2 :  19,  14  :  9,  Mich.  5  :  11,  13.  In  respect  to  the  latter, 
aptly  Calvin  :  "  Intelligit  tantamfore  detestationem  superstitionum,ut 
populus  etiam  ad  nomen  ipsurn  horreat."  —  "  The  prophets."  That 
we  are  not,  with  Eichhorn  and  Rijckert,  to  regard  the  prophet  here 
as  predicting  the  abolition  of  the  prerogatives  of  prophecy,  but  rather 
only  the  extirpation  of  the  false  prophets,  appears  from  the  colloca- 
tion of  the  prophets  with  the  idols  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  the 
unclean  spirit  on  the  other;  from  the  phrase,  "I  will  cause  to 
pass  out  of  the  land,"  which  points  to  a  violent  expulsion  of  some- 
thing bad  in  itself  and  polluting  to  the  land ;  and  from  the  further 
description,  which  follows,  where  two  kinds  of  false  prophets  are 
spoken  of,  those  who  speak  falsehood  in  the  nam*  of  the  Lord,  and 
those  who  combine  false  prophecy  whh  idolatry.  The  false  proph- 
ets are  called  also  in  other  passages  simply  prophets,  (comp.  on  chap. 
10  :  2,)  because  the  use  of  this  name,  which  they  had  usurped,  in 
contrast  with  their  real  character,  served  to  make  their  guilt  appear  in 
a  stronger  light,  just  as  the  prophet  in  the  foregoing  chapter  calls  the 


ZECHARIAH  12  :  I.  — 13  :  6.  235 

wolves  in  the  shepherd's  clothes,  shepherds.  The  article  can  prove 
nothing  in  favor  of  the  prophets  in  general  being  intended,  since  it 
rather  points  to  a  species  of  prophets  defined  by  the  whole  context.  — 
The  unclean  spirit,  on  the  one  hand,  stands  in  antithesis  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who,  according  to  chap.  12  :  10,  was  to  be  poured  out, 
and  the  fountain  for  the  removal  of  uncleanness,  v.  1,  on  the  other. 
The  special  reference  to  idolatry  and  false  prophecy,  chiefly  to  the 
latter,  appears  from  the  collocation  with  them  ;  that  the  prophet  had 
in  view  a  person,  or  even  merely  a  personification,  does  not  appear 
from  the  article.  For  this  can  be  explained,  either,  by  an  allusion 
to  the  former  Theocracy,  the  unclean  spirit,  who  is  known  to  you 
by  his  former  dominion  and  ruinous  effects ;  or,  from  the  antithesis 
with  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  from  the  reference  to  the  false  prophets,  the 
unclean  spirit  by  whom  they  are  moved.  So  much,  however,  cer- 
tainly appears  from  this  designation,  that  the  false  prophets,  as  well  as 
the  true,  perhaps  also  the.  worshippers  of  idols  as  well  as  the  worship- 
pers of  the  true  God,  were  under  the  dominion  of  a  principle  foreign 
to  themselves,  to  which  they  had  surrendered  themselves  by  their 
own  free  act.  For  nn  never  stands  merely  for  a  man's  own  dis- 
position. The  same  also  is  evident  from  the  relation,  1  Kings  22, 
where  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  which,  in  accordance  with  the  char- 
acter of  the  vision  appears  personified,  offers  to  deceive  Ahab  by 
putting  false  predictions  into  the  mouth  of  the  prophets  of  the  calves. 
It  is  here  evident,  that  the  false  prophets,  as  well  as  the  true,  were 
under  an  influence  foreign  from  their  nature,  a  doctrine  which  is 
confirmed  also  by  the  fundamental  view  of  the  New  Testament  con- 
cerning the  kingdom  of  darkness  and  of  light,  both  in  like  manner 
having  possession  of  the  minds  of  those  subject  to  them,  (comp.  e.  g. 
the  parable  of  the  tares  and  the  wheat.)  —  In  numerous  passages  of 
the  Sohar,  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise  is  placed  in  the  Messianic 
time.  We  here  bring  forward  only  a  kv/.  "  Sin  will  not  cease 
from  the  world  until  the  King  Messiah  will  come  at  a  future  time,  as 
the  Scripture  says  :  I  will  cause  the  unclean  spirit,"  &c.  —  "  The 
left  side  will  have  the  upper  hand  and  the  unclean  be  strong,  until 
the  Holy  God  shall  build  the  temple,  and  firmly  establish  the  world  ; 
then  will  his  word  gain  its  deserved  honor,  and  the  unclean  side  will 
go  out  of  the  world.  And  that  is  what  the  Scripture  says  :  I  will 
cause  the  unclean  spirit,"  &,c.  Comp.  these  and  other  passages 
in  Schottgen,  Jesus  der  wahre  Messias,  p.  407  sq. 

V.  3.  ''  And  it  happens,  if  a  man  still  prophecy ,  his  father  and 


236  ZECHARIAH  12  :  1.  ~  13 :  6. 

his  mother,  who  begat  Mm,  speak  thus  to  him  :  Thou  shalt  not  live, 
for  thou  hast  spoken  lies  in  the  name  of  the  Lord;  and  his  father 
and  his  mother,  who  hegat  him,  pierce  him  through  in  his  prophecy- 
ing."  Jerome  :  "  Statim  pater  ejus  et  mater  obliviscentur  paren- 
tum,  nt  dei  retineant  servitutem,  et  proferent  contra  flium  mortis 
sententiam,  et  tarn  pics  erunt  omnium  in  deum  mentes,  ut  non  exspec- 
tetur  publicum  judicium,  sed  pereant,  qui  tales  sunt,  sententia  pro- 
pinquorum."  The  fundamental  thought  is  :  At  that  time  the  com- 
mand to  love  God  above  all,  to  renounce  all  that  a  man  has  for 
his  sake,  will  be  obeyed.  In  the  expression  of  this  thought  the 
prophet  has  in  view  the  passages,  Deut.  13  :  6  -  10  and  18  :  20, 
where  the  nearest  relation  of  the  false  prophet  was  commanded,  re- 
gardless of  all  natural  feelings,  to  put  him  to  death,  as  a  violation  of 
the  majesty  of  God.  The  fact  of  false  prophecy,  as  Ch.  B.  Michae- 
lis  has  justly  remarked,  is  here  stated  only  hypothetically ;  the 
prophet  employs  it  only  as  a  foundation  for  his  description  of  the 
entire  devotedness  of  the  covenant  people  to  God.  The  phrase  his 
begetters  is  peculiarly  emphatic,  and  "is  therefore  repeated  in  the 
relation  of  the  command.  It  intimates,  how  hard  it  must  be  for 
parents  to  deny  their  natural  feeling  of  parental  love,  and  how  great 
therefore  must  be  their  love  for  God.  Hitzig  (1.  c.  p.  28)  asserts,  that 
the  verb  nV  stands  here,  according  to  the  older  idiom  of  Genesis,  in 
the  sense  to  beget,  and  grounds  upon  it  his  chief  philological  argu- 
ment for  the  composition  of  the  second  part  long  before  Zechariah. 
But  what  can  be  expected  of  a  critic  who  avails  himself  of  such 
proof.  As  the  Hebrew  has  no  word  for  parents,  the  prophet  was 
obliged  to  employ  a  designation,  which  strictly  taken  was  suited 
only  to  one  party.  —  The  verb  -ij^l,  according  to  several  interpre- 
ters, does  not  imply  a  mortal  piercing,  but  only  corporeal  -punish- 
ment. The  contrary,  however,  appears  partly  from  what  precedes, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  live,"  since  here  the  execution  of  the  sentence  only 
is  related  ;  partly  from  the  passages  of  the  law,  which  the  prophet 
had  in  view.  In  these  the  subject  of  discourse  is  not  punishment 
in  general,  but  putting  to  death.  Comp.  Deut.  18 :  20  :  "  The 
prophet,  who  presumes  to  speak  any  thing  in  my  name,  which  I 
have  not  commanded  him,  and  he  who  speaks  in  the  name  of 
strange  gods,  shall  die  "  ;  Michaelis,  Mos.  R.  V.  §  252.  The  heav- 
iest punishment  best  serves  also  to  express  the  thought  which  the 
prophet  intends.  What  has  led  to  this  supposition  is  an  erroneous 
idea,  that  the  false  prophet  in  this  verse  must  belong  to  those  who 


ZECHARIAH  12 .  1.  — 13  :  6.  237 

come  forward  as  actors  in  what  follows.  —  Moses,  in  his  laws  relat- 
ing to  false  prophets,  had  mentioned  two  classes,  those  who  pre- 
dicted falsely  in  the  name,  under  the  authority  of  the  true  God,  giving 
themselves  out  as  his  servants  and  ambassadors  ;  and  those  who 
prophesied  in  the  name  of  strange  gods,  derived  inspiration  from 
them.  Here  the  prophet  brings  before  us  one  of  the  former ;  v.  5,  6, 
one  of  the  latter.  —  "  In  the  very  act  of  prophesying."  The  parents, 
as  soon  as  they  see  the  sin,  without  taking  long  counsel  with  flesh 
and  blood,  inflict  the  punishment. 

V.  4.  "  And  in  that  day  the  prophets  shall  desist,  ashamed,  from 
their  vision  in  their  prophesying ,  and  they  shall  no  longer  put  on  the 
hairy  mantle  to  lie."  On  the  prophets  themselves,  the  deceivers 
who  are  least  susceptible  of  good  impressions,  the  great  revolution  of 
affairs  shall  have  such  an  influence,  that  they  will  give  up  their  pro- 
fession from  shame.  "  In  their  prophesying  "  again,  i.  q.  "  in  the 
very  act  of  prophesying."  It  is  not  to  be  joined  with  irjrit?,  but  with 
itC'D.".  In  the  very  commission  of  sin,  when  it  is  the  sweetest  and 
most  captivates  the  mind,  they  determine  to  renounce  it.  With 
respect  to  the  irregular  infinitive  form,  to  be  explained  from  a  con- 
founding of  the  verbs  xS  and  nS,  comp.  Ewald,  p.  454.  E'O  with 
|r3,  "to  desist  from  any  thing  ashamed."  "li'ti/  r»n!Jb*,  hairy  mantle, 
was  the  garment  of  the  true  prophets,  which  was  imitated  by  the 
false,  in  order  to  impose  on  the  people,  with  whom  the  garment 
makes  the  man  ;  comp.  Is.  20  :  2,  2  Kings  1  :  8.  According  to  the 
prevailing  view,  defended  at  length  particularly  by  Vitringa,  on  Is. 
1.  c,  the  prophets  wore  this  garment  as  ascetics.  But,  as  the  hairy  gar- 
ment is  elsewhere  always  peculiar  to  mourners,  and  as  the  prophets 
themselves  not  unfrequently  exhort  to  put  it  on,  as  a  sign  of  anguish 
for  sin  and  the  divine  judgments,  either  still  impending  or  already 
inflicted,  it  is  certainly  more  obvious  to  assume,  that,  with  them  also, 
this  dress  had  the  same  meaning;  that  it  was  a  sermo  propheticus 
realis,  a  symbol  of  the  lamentation  of  the  prophet  over  the  sins  of  the 
people,  and  over  the  divine  judgments,  which  they  called  forth  ; 
and  the  more  so,  since  elsewhere  we  do  not  find  in  the  prophecies  of 
the  Old  Testament  any  trace  of  a  properly  ascetic  life.  In  order 
to  lie  can  either  mean,  in  order  thereby  to  give  themselves  out  as 
true  prophets,  to  deceive  the  people  by  this  dress,  or  in  order  there- 
by to  procure  admission  for  their  lying  prophecies.  The  former  is 
to  be  preferred  on  account  of  the  following  verse,  where,  to  the 
former  attempts  of  the  false  prophets  to  pass  themselves  off  for  the 
true,  is  opposed  their  open  confession  to  the  contrary. 


238  ZECHARIAH  18  :  1.  —  13  :  6. 

V.  5.  "  And  he  says,  I  am  no  prophet,  I  am  a  husbandman.  For 
a  man  has  sold  me  from  the  time  of  my  youth."  The  false  prophets 
were  mostly  of  the  lowest  order.  The  ruling  motive  with  them  was 
indolence,  which  caused  them  to  hate  a  life  of  labor  j  and  ambition, 
which  stimulated  them  to  force  themselves  into  the  more  respectable 
order  of  teachers  of  the  people.  This  appears  from  Isaiah  9  :  13,  14, 
among  other  passages,  where  there  is  a  contrast  between  the  honor- 
able, as  the  head  of  the  people,  and  the  false  prophets  as  the  tail,  as  the 
representatives  of  the  rabble.  Now  at  that  time  the  better  principle 
will  so  gain  the  ascendency  over  them,  that  they  will  rather  wish  to 
appear  what  they  are,  even  though  they  are  hired  husbandmen,  than 
what  they  formerly  aspired  to.  Calvin  :  "  Ego  non  fui  in  schola, 
ego  bestia  eram,  et  tamen  volui  videri  doctissimus  magister ;  sed  tunc 
stupor  popitli  velavit  mtam  ignominiam  ;  nunc  autem  lux  doctrines 
nobis  affulsit,  quce  cogit  me  ad  pudorem,  et  ideo  jam  fateor,  me  non 
esse  dignum,  qui  audiar  in  coztu,  quia  parafus  sum  manus  meas 
potius  exercere  vili  et  sordido  labore,  ut  inde  mihi  victum  accipiam, 
qtiam  amplius  decipere,  sicut  hactenus  feci."  The  prophet  repre- 
sents a  scene  between  a  former  false  prophet  and  some  one  who 
asked  him  concerning  his  circumstances,  and  from  whom  he  sought 
to  conceal  with  shame,  that  he  had  ever  been  a  false  prophet,  — 
whence  it  appears  that  Calvin  has  well  expressed  the  inward  thought 
but  not  the  language  of  the  false  prophet,  —  until  he  is  forced, 
(comp.  V.  6)  by  a  new  question  to  this  mortifying  confession.  From 
this  dramatic  character  of  the  representation,  the  double  in^'l  is  ex- 
plained here  and  v.  6,  without  a  nearer  designation  of  the  person 
who  speaks.  In  the  drama  the  persons  are  known  from  their  dis- 
courses and  actions.  ''JJP.n  has  received  very  different  explanations. 
This  however  would  not  have  been  the  case,  if  it  had  been  taken 
simply  in  its  usual  meaning  of  Hiphil :  njp ,  to  inherit,  to  possess,  in 
Hiphil  to  cause  to  inherit,  to  possess,  then  to  give  to  any  one  to  be 
possessed.  In  this  sense  the  Hiphil  of  HJp^  stands  in  the  only  pas- 
sage where  it  occurs  besides,  Ezek.  8  :  3,  on  which  Cocceius  re- 
marks :  "  Videtur  esse  aut  anaclasis  ant  paronomasia :  simulacri, 
quod  deum  facit  zelare,  facitque  Israelitas  servos  tradi  hostibus." 
The  selling  of  servants,  especially  of  debtors  and  their  whole  fami- 
lies, was  so  common,  that  the  expression  'Ipp  ^IP.?  became  almost 
the  usual  appellation  of  servants  ;  comp.  Michaelis,  Mos.  R.,  II.  §  123. 
The  general  designation  Dnx  is  chosen  because  the  person  of  the 
seller  was  here  not  important,  but  only  the  action,  the  sale.     The 


ZECHARIAH  12  :  1.  —  13  :  6.  239 

phrase,  "  from  my  youth,"  is  intended  to  obviate  the  suspicion,  that 
perhaps  the  present  husbandman  might  formerly  have  been  a  prophet. 
If  he  were  not  an  independent  husbandman,  but  a  servant  in  the 
employment  of  another,  even  with  the  best  inclination  to  act  the 
part  of  a  prophet,  he  was,  as  it  appears,  restrained  therefrom  by  out- 
ward circumstances.  He  had  better,  to  be  sure,  if  he  wished  entirely 
to  set  aside  the  suspicion,  not  have  begun  with,  "  I  am  no  prophet." 
But  the  anxiety  lest  he  should  be  known  as  a  former  prophet  so 
overcomes  him,  that  he  loses  his  self-possession,  and  by  the  very 
denial  puts  the  inquirer  on  the  right  track. 

V.  6.  "  Thtz  former  says  :  What  then  are  these  wounds  between 
thy  hands  ;  he  says,  They  were  inflicted  upon  me  in  the  house  of  my 
lovers."  According  to  several  interpreters  the  former  false  prophet 
here  proceeds  with  his  falsehood.  So  Kimchi :  "  Non  sunt  plag(B 
oh  prophetiam  inflictcB,  sed  quibus  ab  illis,  qui  me  amabant,  in  ptieri- 
tia  castigatus  sum,  quod  deses  in  colendo  agro  fuissem."  Accord- 
ing to  others,  confessing  his  shame,  he  says,  that  the  wounds  have 
truly  been  given  him  on  account  of  his  prophesying,  and  indeed,  as 
he  well  perceives,  out  of  true  love  by  his  parents.  So  Jerome  :  "  In 
tantum  fugato  mendacio  Veritas  ohtinebit,  ut  etiam  ipse,  qui  sua 
punitus  est  vitio,  rccte  perpessum  se  esse  fatf,atur."  Both  interpreta- 
tions, however,  are  plainly  untenable.  They  take  the  part.  Pi. 
□'nnxn  in  a  good  sense,  while,  in  accordance  with  the  character  of 
Piel  as  an  intensive  form,  (comp.  Ewald,  p.  196,)  it  occurs  only  of 
impure  and  base  love,  either  spiritual  or  corporeal,  especially  of 
idols,  and  indeed  so  frequently,  and  moreover  chiefly  in  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel,  that  only  extreme  necessity  could  induce  us  here  to 
relinquish  this  meaning.  We  therefore  without  hesitation  agree 
with  those,  who  here  find  a  reference  to  the  wounds  commonly  in- 
flicted in  idolatrous  worship.  The  chief  passages  for  this  custom, 
which  is  still  continued  in  modern  times  in  the  East,  are  found  in 
Le  Clerc,  Calmet,  and  Dereser,  on  1  Kings  18 :  28.  The  two  last, 
but  incorrectly,  cite  in  its  favor  Herod.  7,  191,  for  the  IVro/xa  ts 
noisvvTsg  there  practised  by  the  Magi,  can  be  regarded  as  belonging 
to  this  practice  only  by  a  false  interpretation ;  and  further,  in  Rosen- 
miiller,  A.  u.  N.  Morgenl.  3,  p.  189  flf.,  and  Creuzer,  Symbolik,  11. 
p.  40.  We  content  ourselves  here  with  showing  that  this  custom 
also  existed  in  the  idolatrous  worship,  which  prevailed  among  the 
Hebrews.  The  chief  proof  is  furnished  by  the  cited  passage  of 
Kings,  where  it  is  said  of  the  priests  and  prophets  of  Baal  :  "  They 


240  ZECHARIAH  12  :  1.  —  13 :  6. 

cried  louder  and  scratched  themselves,  after  their  manner,  with 
knives  and  awls,  until  the  blood  flowed  down  from  them."  In  proof 
also  is  Jeremiah  16  :  6,  41  :  5;  according  to  which  the  heathenish 
practice  of  wounding  themselves  in  their  lamentation  over  the  dead 
or  a  great  public  calamity,  as  it  prevailed  among  the  surrounding 
people,  particularly  the  Philistines  and  Moabites,  (corap.  47 :  5, 
48  :  37,)  was  introduced  also  among  the  Hebrews.  For  this  usage 
was  not  indeed  a  mere  symbol  of  distress,  but  it  was  closely  con- 
nected with  idolatry  and  the  wounds  usually  inflicted  in  the  practice 
of  it.  This  appears  from  Deut.  14:  1.  There  the  infliction  of  wounds 
in  mourning  is  interdicted  to  the  Israelites  on  the  ground,  that,  inas- 
much as  they  were  the  holy  people  of  God,  they  must  not  pollute 
themselves  with  idolatrous  practices.  This  connexion  will  be  more 
manifest,  if  we  more  closely  investigate  the  origin  and  import  of  the 
practice  of  inflicting  wounds  in  idolatrous  worship.  The  best  dis- 
closure is  furnished  us  by  a  passage  of  Apuleius  cited  by  Le  Clerc,  1. 
c. :  "  Infit  vaticinatione  damosa,  conficto  mendacio,  semet  ipsum  inces' 
sere  atque  criminari,  quasi  contra  fas  sanctte  rcligionis  designasset 
aliquid,  et  insuper  justas  poenas  noxii  facinoris  ipse  suis  manibus  ex- 
poscere.     Arrepto  denique  jlagro,  quod  semiviris  illis  proprium  ges- 

taman  est ,  indidetn  sese  multimodis  commulcat  ictihus,  mira 

contra  plagarum  dolores  prcesumtione  munitus.  Cerneres  prosectu 
gladiorum  icttique  jlagrorum  solum  spurcitie  sanguinis  effeminati 
madescere."  According  to  this  passage,  as  well  as  another  of  Clem. 
Alex,  in  Calmet,  the  practice  of  wounding  arose  from  an  obscure  con- 
sciousness of  guilt,  and  the  necessity  of  reconciliation,  which  mani- 
fests itself  in  such  manifold  ways  in  idolatrous  worship.  Man  raged 
unsparing  against  his  own  body,  in  order  thereby  to  make  a  sort  of 
satisfaction,  and  gain  for  himself  the  favor  of  the  angry  gods.  This 
feeling  of  guilt,  however,  was  awakened  with  peculiar  vividness  by 
the  death  of  beloved  persons,  not  merely  because  their  loss  was 
regarded  as  a  punishment,  but  also  because  death  in  general,  which 
comes  the  closer  to  ourselves  the  more  dear  to  us  its  victims,  awakens 
even  in  the  rudest  minds  an  anticipation  of  what  it  really  is,  the 
wages  of  the  sins  of  mankind.  In  like  manner  also  was  this  feel- 
ing awakened  by  public  calamity,  so  far  as  this  was  generally 
regarded  as  the  punishment  of  an  angry  God  or  angry  idols.  —  We 
are  not,  however,  without  proofs,  that  this  usage  stood  especially  in 
close  connexion  with  the  prophecies  of  the  idolatrous  prophets.  In 
this  connexion  it  occurs  immediately  in  the  cited  passage  of  Kings, 


.% 


ZECH ARI A  H  13  ■  ] .  —  13  :  6.  24 1 

(comp.  V.29,)  as  in  general  the  whole  of  that  relation  bears  testimony 
to  the  close  connexion  of  idolatry  and  false  prophecy.  The  priests 
of  Baal  are  at  the  same  time  his  prophets.  Especially  remarkable, 
however,  is  the  passage  of  Tibullus,  Lib.  I.  Eleg.  1,  v.  43  sq.,  concern- 
ing the  service  of  Cybele  : 

"  Ipsa  bipennc  suos  cccdit  violenta  lacertos, 
Smiguineque  effus'o  spargit  inept  a  dcum, 
Atqua  latus  prafixa  veru  stat  saucin  pectus, 
Et  canit  eventtis,  quos  dea  magna  movct." 
This  connexion  is  explained  by  the  feeling,  that  a  man  must  render 
satisfaction  to  the  divinity  for  his  sins,  before  he  can  be  worthy  to 
enjoy  his  favor  and  be  employed  in  his  service.  —  No  consideration 
is  due  to  the  doubt  of  Rosenmi'iller,  whether  m3g  could  be  used  of 
these  inflictions  and  the  scars  arising  from  them.  Apuleius  desig- 
nates them,  as  we  have  already  seen,  by  the  entirely  corresponding 
plagcB.  Seneca,  in  Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei,  6,  10,  says  :  "  Se  ipsiin 
tcmplis  contrucidant,  vidnerihus  suis  ac  sanguine  supplicant."  An 
apparent  objection  might  yet  be  derived  from  "  I  have  been  smit- 
ten," while  most  accounts  of  this  practice  speak  only  of  a  self-inflic- 
tion. But  it  appears  from  the  accounts  of  more  recent  travellers, 
(comp.  Olearius,  p.  332,)  that  mutual  wounds  are  given,  and  "  more- 
over, I  have  been  smitten  "  does  by  no  means  exclude  wounding  one's 
self.  The  former  prophet  may  have  chosen  the  passive  intention- 
ally, because  he  was  only  the  second  cause  ;  the  Jirst  cause  was  the 
Q'^D'^^.  The  case  more  closely  considered,  the  prophet  himself 
was  chiefly  passive  in  his  action.  The  latter  supposition  is  rendered 
the  more  probable  by  the  choice  of  D'^nxn  as  a  designation  of  the 
idols,  which  was  certainly  not  accidental.  "My  lovers"  stands 
manifestly  in  contrast  with  "  I  have  been  smitten."  In  a  manner 
entirely  similar,  the  madness  of  this  sort  of  idolatry  is  described  by 
Seneca,  1.  c.  :  "  Ut  sic  dii  placentur,  quemadmodum  ne  homines  qui- 
dem  sccviunt  tetcrrimi  et  in  fabulas  traditce  crudelitatis.  Tyranni 
laceraverunt  aliquorum  membi-a,  neminem  sua  lacei'arejusserunt.  In 
regicB  libidinis  voluptatem  castrati  sunt  quidam ;  sed  nemo  sibi,  ne 
vir  esset,  jubentc  domino,  inanus  intulit"  —  The  connexion  of  this 
verse  with  the  foregoing  is  as  follows.  The  former  prophet  being 
asked  concerning  his  occupation,  seeks  in  the  first  place  to  remove 
from  himself  all  suspicion  of  having  abandoned  his  inferior  calling. 
As  however  the  inquirer  reminds  him  of  the  suspicious  scars  which 
were  found  upon  him,  he  confesses  witli  shame  his  former  folly,  the 

VOL.    It.  31 


242  ZECHARIAH  13:  7-9. 

consciousness  of  which  he  at  the  same  time  hetrays  by  his  manner. 
The  plirase  ^"V  y;i  still  requires  explanation.  According  to  several 
interpreters  it  means  precisely,  in  the  hands.  But  this  supposition  is 
by  no  means  justified  by  an  appeal  to  Prov.  26  :  13,  "  The  lion  is 
nnnnn  j'-n."  "  Between  the  streets  "  there  signifies  out  of  the 
streets  themselves,  their  environs,  public  places,  &c.  On  the  other 
hand,  however,  we  are  not  justified  with  Gesenius,  Thes.  s.  v.,  in  ex- 
plaining "J'T'  I'a  by,  "  in  corp  ore  tyo,  maxim  e  in  facie."  It  istrue,  that 
such  a  wider  usage  is  found  in  Arabic.  The  phrase  /.vJ(_Xj  (.M-* 
there  signifies  "  ante  faciem,  in  conspectu,  in  prcBsentia."  In  the 
Arabs  Erpenii  'Jab  is  always  rendered  thereby ;  in  the  Vita  Ti- 
muri  we  often  find  Cl^^.^.■?  (l^^.^  VMX/OI  ,  obedientem  se  stitit  coram 
eo ;  comp.  Schultens,  Animadvv.  Phil.  p.  39,  on  Job,  p.  389.  But 
very  much  has  become  obsolete  in  Arabic,  which  in  Hebrew,  and 
in  that  only,  still  occurs  in  its  original  import.  We  had  better,  as  is 
evident,  particularly  from  a  comparison  of  the  cited  passage  of  Prov- 
erbs, explain  "  between  thy  hands"  by  "in  and  near  them."  Be- 
tween is  then  chosen  for  in,  to  show  that  not  precisely  the  hands 
alone  are  intended;  it  determines  only  in  general  the  region,  in 
such  a  manner  however,  that  the  hands  are  chiefly  meant,  and  that 
such  distant  members,  as  the  head  or  the  shoulders,  are  not  to  be 
thought  of.  That  the  hands,  however,  are  chiefly  mentioned  is  not 
indeed  owing  entirely  to  the  circumstance  of  their  being  uncovered, 
and  the  wounds  upon  them  therefore  chiefly  visible.  It  appears 
from  Jeremiah  48  :  37,  where  it  is  said,  in  the  description  of  the 
lamentation  of  the  Moabites,  miTJ  0!!^"'^  ^'^_i  "  Upoi^  all  hands 
are  cuts,"  that  the  hands  were  wont  especially  to  be  wounded.  The 
passages  of  the  classic  writers  and  the  fathers  speak  chiefly  of  the 
arms,  which  are  here  certainly  included,  e.  g.  "  lacertos  secat,"  Sen- 
eca  ;  "  sua  quisque  hrachia  dissecant,"  Apuleius. 


Chap.   13:  v.  7-9. 


The  shepherd  of  the  Lord,  closely  united  with  him,  shall  be  torn 
away  by  a  violent  death  from  his  flock,  the  covenant  people ;  de- 
prived of  the  shepherd,  the  flock  shall  then  disperse,  and  be  given 


ZECHARIAH  13:7-9.  243 

up  to  extreme  misery.  But  the  Lord  will  not  withdraw  his  hand 
from  them  for  ever.  lie  will  rather  restore  his  people  again  to  favor 
after  he  has  cleansed  and  purified  them.  First,  two  thirds  shall  be 
taken  away  by  a  fearful  divine  judgment ;  the  remaining  third  shall 
then  be  led  by  the  Lord  through  the  severest  trials  and  purifications, 
until  at  last  it  truly  turns  to  him. 

This  prophecy  forms  a  brief  repetition,  and  at  the  same  time  a 
supplement,  of  that  in  chap.  1 1  and  12-13:6.  It  is  in  vain  to  at- 
tempt (comp.  Mark  on  v.  7,)  to  connect  it  closely  with  what  imme- 
diately precedes.  It  stands  in  about  the  same  relation  to  both 
prophecies  as  Is.  52:  13-15,  to  chap.  53.  It  presents  us  in  one 
view  with  what  had  been  separated  by  the  length  of  the  preceding 
representation. 


V.  7.  "  Sword  awake  against  my  shepherd,  and  against  a  man, 
my  nearest  relation,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts  ;  smite  the  shepherd 
and  the  jlocTc  is  scattered,  and  I  bring  back  my  hand  upon  the 
small."  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  here,  by  the  shepherd  of  the 
Lord,  is  to  be  understood  the  same  person  united  with  him  by  a 
mysterious  unity  of  being,  who,  according  to  chap.  II,  undertook 
the  pastoral  office  over  the  miserable  people,  and  made  the  last 
effort  to  preserve  them,  but  whose  faithfulness  was  rewarded  with 
base  ingratitude,  who  was  even,  according  to  chap.  12  :  10,  put  to 
death  by  them ;  whose  rejection,  according  to  chap.  11,  had  entirely 
the  same  results  for  the  covenant  people,  as  are  here  attributed  to  his 
death,  the  destruction  of  the  greater  part  of  the  people,  comp.  v.  8 
with  chap.  11  :  C,  9,  1.5  -  17 ;  nay,  whose  death  is  even  represented, 
chap.  12  :  10,  as  indirectly  the  cause  of  all  the  sufferings  experienced 
by  the  people ;  since  repentance  for  his  murder,  appears  there,  as  the 
cause  of  the  deliverance  from  all  these  sufferings.  Hence  it  is  suffi- 
ciently evident,  that  all  those  interpretations  are  to  be  rejected,  which 
understand  by  the  shepherd  any  other  than  the  Messiah  ;  whether,  as, 
with  most  of  the  Jewish  interpreters,  (comp.  Jos.  De  Voisin,  Observv. 
in  Procem.  Pug.  Fid.  p.  160.  Hulsius,  Theol.  Jud.  p.  54.  Eisner, 
Prees.  Wessel,  de  Messia  Gladio  Judicis,  non  Belli  percutiendo.  Lei- 
den, 1741),  the  ideal  pseudo-Messias,  Ben  Joseph;  or,  with  Jarchi, 
even  a  hostile  general,  who  is  called  by  the  Lord  ironically  his 
she-pherd  ;  or,  with  Grotiuson  Matt.  26  :  31,  "  the  foolish  shepherd," 


244  ZECHARIAH  13:7-9. 

of  whom  chap.  11  :  15-  17;  or,  with  the  same  on  this  passage,  who, 
as  is  apt  t )  be  the  case  where  a  man  brings  forward  merely  his  sud- 
den thoughts,  is  inconsistent,  or,  with  Jahti  {Einl.  2,  p.  671),  Judas 
Maccabeus ;  or,  with  the  Rationalist  interpreters  (comp.  Koster 
1.  c.  p.  183.  Bertholdt,  Einl.  p.  1718.  Eichhorn,  Propheten  z.  d.  St.), 
an  ideal  general,  who  should  be  slain  in  battle  with  the  enemy ;  or 
lastly,  with  Calvin  and  Drusius,  the  collective  body  of  all  the  spiritual 
and  civil  rulers  of  the  people,  Christ  being  included.  —  All  these  inter- 
pretations have  against  them,  besides  the  authority  of  Christ,  the 
following  context :  "  Against  a  man,  my  nearest  relation."  This 
would  not,  to  be  sure,  be  the  case,  if  n"'p;^',  as  is  often  asserted,  could 
designate  a  fellow  in  every  relation.  The  shepherd  would  be  called 
the  fellow  of  the  Lord,  because  he  also  is  the  shepherd  of  his  people. 
But  this  supposition  is  entirely  untenable.  n''p;?  is  one  of  those 
words,  which,  peculiar  to  the  Pentateuch,  have  entirely  disappeared 
from  the  later  idiom.  It  occurs  in  the  Pentateuch  eleven  tinaes, 
and  nowhere  else.  Hence  it  appears,  that  Zechariah  took  it,  as 
well  as  ^-i^X,  (comp.  on  chap.  12  :  5),  not  from  the  living  language, 
but  from  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  we  must  understand  it  therefore 
in  precisely  the  sense  in  which  it  is  there  used.  It  occurs,  how- 
ever, only  in  the  laws  respecting  the  injury  of  a  neighbour,  and 
always  with  peculiar  emphasis,  intimating  how  grievous  a  crime  it  is 
to  injure  those  connected  with  us  by  a  common  corporeal  and  spir- 
itual origin.  It  is  interchanged  as  synonymous  with  brother,  which 
in  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  uniformly  refers  to  the  common  corpo- 
real and  spiritual  descent.  We  will  here  cite  the  eleven  passages, 
in  which  it  occurs.  Levit.  19:  11,  "Ye  shall  not  lie  nor  deceive 
in'Di'a  '&'^,"  (comp.  Ephes.  4  :  28.)  V.  15.  "  Righteously  shait 
thou  judge  '"jD"'??]^."  V.  17.  "  Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy  brother  in 
the  heart;  thou  shalt  reprove  ^i^!'^^.."  Levit.  18  :  20,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  defile  ^i?'?>'  n'^'x."  24  :  19,  "  When  any  one  inflicts  a  corpo- 
real injury  in'p^'B,  as  he  has  done,  so  shall  it  be  done  to  him." 
25 :  15,  "  When  thou  buyest  any  thing  of  thy  neighbour  or  sellest 
any  thing  to  thy  neighbour,  you  shall  not  injure  each  one  his 
brother."  In  like  manner,  v.  16  and  17,  "  And  ye  shall  not  injure 
each  one  his  neighbour,  and  thou  shalt  fear  before  thy  God."  Levit. 
5 :  20,  "  A  soul,  if  it  sins  and  does  wickedly  against  the  Lord,  and 
lies  against  his  neighbour  (in  that  which  was  intrusted  to  him), — 
or  oppresses  his  neighbour."  We  hope  every  one  will  concede  that 
n-pi'  in  all  these  places,  in  a  manner  entirely  different  from  our  word 


ZECHARI  All  13:7-9.  245 

neighbour,  diluted  and  deprived  through  sin  of  its  original  worth, 
and  for  the  most  part  suggesting  only  any  other  person,  is  used  to 
designate  the  closest  possible  relation  among  men,  and  one  which 
cannot  indeed  be  arbitrarily  formed,  but  comes  by  birth,  and  continues 
even  against  one's  will,  and  exposes  him  to  condemnation  when  he 
violates  it.  But  hence  it  appears,  that,  when  this  designation  is  trans- 
ferred to  the  relation  of  an  individual  to  God,  he  cannot  possibly  be 
a  mere  man,  but  rather  he  who  is  united  with  the  Lord  by  a  mysteri- 
ous unity  of  nature,  and  who  has  already,  in  chap.  11,  12,  as  such, 
so  plainly  appeared.  —  For  designating  him  here  by  the  n''Dy  of  the 
Lord,  the  prophet  must  have  had  a  peculiar  reason,  when  we  consider 
that  JVO^H  occurs  exclusively  in  the  laws  de  non  ItBclendo  proximo. 
He  thus  gives  prominence  to  the  apparent  contradiction  between 
the  command  of  the  Lord,  "  Sword,  awake  against  my  shepherd," 
and  the  requisitions  of  his  own  law,  which  forbids  any  one  to  injure 
his  neighbour.  He  shows  in  this  way,  how  exalted  must  have  been 
the  aim  for  whose  accomplishment  the  Lord  disregarded  that  relation, 
whose  type  he  had  commanded  to  be  held  sacred  among  men.  He 
directs  their  attention,  to  speak  after  the  manner  of  men,  to  the 
greatness  of  the  sacrifice,  which  this  must  cost  the  Lord.  The  sub- 
joined "^.^A  stands  in  a  certain  antithesis  with  ^T^^nV .  He  whom  the 
sword  should  smite,  must  combine  the  human  with  the  divine  nature. 
"^Si  often  signifies  man  in  contrast  with  God  ;  comp.  Winer,  s.  v. 
We  need  not  here,  with  several  interpreters,  seek  for  the  associated 
idea  of  strength,  which  the  word,  like  man  in  English,  has  in  sev- 
eral places.  —  The  personification  of  the  sword,  in  the  address  to  it, 
finds  a  complete  analogy  in  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  against  Phi- 
listia,  chap.  47  :  6,  where  the  prophet,  from  human  sympathy  with 
the  fate  of  those  against  whom  he  prophesies,  exclaims  :  "  Ha, 
sword  of  the  Lord,  how  long  wilt  thou  not  rest ;  return  back  into  thy 
sheath  ;  be  quiet  and  still  !  Yet  how  canst  thou  be  quiet,  since  the 
Lord  has  commanded  it,  since  against  Askalon  and  against  the 
bank  of  the  sea  has  he  sent  it."  It  is  shown  by  this  command,  that 
the  Lord  is  the  first  cause  of  the  death  of  his  shepherd,  that  the 
human  authors  are  only  his  instruments;  as  the  Lord,  John  19  :  11, 
says  to  Pilate  :  "  Thou  wouldst  have  no  power  against  me  except  it 
were  given  thee  from  above."  The  expression,  aioaJce,  shows  that 
the  sword,  in  accordance  with  the  personification  of  it,  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  hitherto  at  rest.  Schmid  :  "  Po&ucb  istcc  hactenns  ChriS' 
turn  manserunt ;  vondumfuit  lis  concesstim,  ut  eum  invoderent ;  jam 


246  ZECHARIAH  13:7-9. 

vero  aternus  pater,  solutis  quasi  vinculis  et  apertis  ubique  portis, 
potestatem  iis  facit,  ut  filium  suum  adoriantur."  That  the  sioord  is 
called  upon  to  smite  the  shepherd  of  the  Lord,  expresses  in  like 
manner  as  pierced,  chap.  12  :  10,  which  intimates  not  a  cut  but  a 
stab,  only  his  impending  death  without  defining  the  manner  of  it. 
The  sword,  as  the  usual  instrument  of  the  judge  and  the  warrior, 
often  stands  instead  of  every  fatal  instrument,  where  the  instrument 
itself  is  not  important,  but  only  the  infliction  of  wounds  and  of  death. 
The  most  striking  example  is  2  Sam.  12  :  9,  "  Thou  hast  slain  him, 
Uriah,  by  the  sword,  3"?n3,  of  the  children  of  Ammon,"  while,  ac- 
cording to  2  Sam.  11  :  24,  he  was  pierced  by  the  arrows  of  the  Am- 
monites.—  2  Sam.  11:  25,  after  David  receives  from  Joab  the 
message  that  several  of  his  people  had  been  slain  by  the  hostile 
archers,  he  makes  him  say  again  :  "  Let  not  this  thing  displease 
thee  ;  for  the  sword  devoureth  one  as  well  as  another ;  only  make  thy 
battle  strong  against  the  city."  A  similar  general  use  of  the  sword 
is  found  also  Exod.  5:21,  "Ye  have  made  our  savour  to  stink 
before  Pharaoh  and  his  servants,  giving  the  sword  into  their  hands 
to  kill  us;  "  Jerem.  2  :  23,  "  Your  sword  has  devoured  your  proph- 
ets;" Ps.  22  :  21,  "  Deliver  from  the  sword  my  soul"  (comp.  Vol. 
I.  p.  146.)  ;  Matt.  26  :  52,  "  He  who  takes  the  sword  shall  perish 
by  the  sword."  What  murderer  would  avoid  the  application  of  the 
sentence  to  himself,  which  is  a  repetition  of  what  is  expressed  in 
altogether  general  terms.  Gen.  9  :  6,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  kill- 
ed his  neighbour,  not  by  the  sword,  but  by  another  instrument? 
According  to  the  same  idiom  the  right  of  the  magistrates  among  the 
Romans  to  inflict  every  kind  of  capital  punishment,  was  called  the 
jus  gladii.  —  The  address,  "  Smite  the  shepherd,"  according  to 
several  interpreters,  is  no  longer  directed  to  the  sword  ;  Michaelis, 
"  Per  cute,  quisquis  percuties ;"  but  the  fact,  that  n'^n  is  feminine, 
gives  no  justification  for  this,  since  there  is  here  a  personification, 
comp.  e.  g.  Gen.  4  :  7,  where  sin,  personified  as  a  ravenous  beast,  is 
construed  as  masculine.  —  "  Smite  the  shepherd,  and  then  the  herd 
roill  dispersed  Is  the  shepherd  either  in  the  natural  or  spiritual 
sense  slain,  the  flock  is  wont  to  disperse.  The  prophet  seems  here 
to  have  special  reference  to  1  Kings  22  :  17,  where  the  prophet 
Micah  says  to  Jehoshaphat  and  Ahab,  predicting  the  death  of  the 
latter  :  "  I  saw  all  Israel  scattered  on  the  hills  as  a  flock,  which  has 
no  shepherd  :  and  the  Lord  said.  These  have  no  shepherd,  let  them 
return  each  one   to  his  houee  in  peace ;"  comp.  1  Mace.  9  :  18  :  Kal 


ZECHARIAH  13:7-9.  247 

^lovdag  sTtsas'  xal  ol  lomol  k'cpvyop.  By  a  misunderstanding  of  the  New 
Testament  citations  of  the  passage,  many  interpreters  have  been  led 
to  take  the  Jlock  here  in  too  limited  a  sense,  and  refer  only  to  a  part, 
what  belongs  to  the  whole.  Thus  the  Dialogus  cam  Tryphone  un- 
derstands by  the  flock  only  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  nnd  finds  the 
complete  fulfilment  in  their  flight  after  his  arrest.  Ambrose  finds  it 
in  the  dispersion  of  the  apostles  into  all  lands,  and  in  their  preach- 
ing the  doctrine  of  Christ.  (Serm.  II.  in  Ps.  118.)  According  to 
Michaelis,  the  flock  are  apostoli,  aliique  Judcsi,  in  Christtim  Jesum 
crcdcntes,  as  Jerome  long  before  understood  thereby  oinnem  in 
Christo  muUitudinem  credcntium.  This  limitation,  however,  is 
equally  as  incorrect  as  the  opposite  one  of  the  converted  R.  Samuel, 
Liber  de  Adveniu  MessicB,  (in  the  Monurnenta  Oi'tkodoxogropha, 
Basel,  15.55,  p.  1302  sq.)  chap.  19,  who  appears  to  understand,  by 
the  flock,  exclusively  the  ungodly  part  of  the  people  to  be  scattered 
by  the  Romans  :  "  Crucijixo  Christo,  qtii  pastor  erat,  Judceos  disper- 
ses esse  per  orbem  terrce,  postqunm  capti  et  venditi  sunt  Romanis." 
The  true  sense  of  the  passage  was  seen  by  Wessel,  1.  c.  and  Mark. 
The  flock  must  embrace  the  sheep  collectively,  which  the  shepherd 
had  to  feed.  These  however  were  not,  according  to  chap.  11,  the 
believers  alone,  but  the  whole  Jewish  people,  see  especially  on  v.  7  ; 
the  most  miserable  sheep,  who  regarded  the  shepherd,  appear  v.  1 1 , 
only  as  one  part  of  this  flock.  Still  more  decisive  however  is  what 
follows.  The  flock  are  plainly  the  small,  who  are  represented  imme- 
diately afterwards  as  an  object  of  further  divine  care.  But,  that  we 
cannot  by  these  understand  the  believers  only,  or  indeed  the  apos- 
tles, without  destroying  the  whole  connexion  between  v.  7  and  v.  8, 
9,  we  shall  soon  see.  Accordingly,  under  the  image  of  sheep  without 
a  shepherd,  the  whole  Jewish  people  after  the  death  of  the  Messiah, 
are  here  described.  In  what  manner,  and  how  long  they  were 
without  a  shepherd,  and  consequently  wretched,  depended  on  their 
spiritual  condition,  and  on  the  corresponding  dealings  of  the  Lord. 
The  desertion  of  the  apostles  and  other  believers  by  their  shepherd, 
was  only  temporary  ;  the  Lord  soon  returned  to  them.  The  unbe- 
lieving portion  of  the  people  still  wander  about  as  sheep,  who  have  no 
shepherd.  —  The  phrase,  "to  bring  back  the  hand  upon  any  one," 
i.  q.,  to  make  him  either  the  object  of  an  action,  or  an  operation,  is 
of  itself  indefinite ;  and  whether  it  stands  in  a  good  or  a  bad  sense, 
must  in  every  case  be  decided  by  the  connexion.  Several  interpre- 
ters here  assume  the  latter,  after  the  Chaldee,  the  Seventy,   and  the 


248  ZECHARIAH  13:7-9. 

Greek  interpreters,  who  follow  them.  This  supposition  appears  at 
first  sight  to  be  favored  by  what  follows  ;  since  in  v.  8  the  discourse 
relates  to  a  heavy  judgment  to  be  inflicted  on  the  dispersed  flock. 
But  on  a  closer  examination  we  find  that  the  former  interpretation 
is  the  only  correct  one.  The  judgment  described  in  v.  8,  according 
to  another  mode  of  considering  the  subject,  was  a  proof  of  the  far- 
ther exercise  of  the  special  providence  of  God  over  the  people  ;  God 
thereby  realized  the  condition,  on  which  alone  they  could  be  restored 
to  their  ancient  gracious  relation  to  him,  and  become  again  the  peo- 
ple of  God.  Every  judgment  upon  the  ungodly  is  indeed  a  benefit 
to  the  church  of  the  Lord.  That  this  view  here  prevails,  appears 
sufficiently  evident  from  v.  9 ;  it  is  also  evident  from  "  the  small." 
For  this  designation  intimates  the  sympathy  of  the  Lord  with  the 
wretched  condition  of  the  poor  sheep,  just  as,  chap.  11:7,  the  shep- 
herd undertakes  to  feed  the  flock,  because  they  are  the  most  miser- 
able sheep.  We  find  the  same  mode  of  representation  in  Malachi. 
After  the  prophet,  chap.  3  :  1-5,  has  announced  a  great  purifying 
judgment  upon  the  covenant  people,  he  adduces  v.  6,  as  a  reason 
for  it,  the  covenant  faithfulness  of  the  Lord,  who  could  not  suffer 
his  people  to  go  to  utter  ruin,  as  must  necessarily  have  been  the 
case  without  this  judgment.  Siill  more  exactly  parallel,  even  in  the 
expression,  and  perhaps  distinctly  in  the  view  of  Zechariah,  is  the 
passage.  Is.  1  :  24,  &c.  :  "  I  will  take  vengeance  on  my  adversaries 
(the  ungodly  members  of  the  Theocracy)  and  /  will  bring  back  my 
hand  upon  thee  (the  church  of  the  Lord),  and  purify,  as  alkali  (puri- 
fies), all  thy  dross,  and  take  away  all  thy  sin.  —  Then  shalt  thou  be 
called  a  city  of  righteousness,  a  faithful  city."  That  the  expression, 
"  I  tvill  bring  back  my  hand  upon  thee,"  stands  here  in  a  good  sense, 
of  the  gracious  benefit  which  the  Lord  confers  upon  his  people  by 
their  purification,  while  he  seemed  to  have  forsaken  them,  so  long 
as  he  neglected  this,  has  been  so  strikingly  proved  by  Vitringa,  that 
Gesenius,  when  without  proof  he  takes  it  in  a  bad  sense,  can 
scarcely  have  read  him.  There  is  indeed  between  Zion  in  v.  25, 
and  the  enemies  of  God  in  v.  24,  a  manifest  antithesis,  precisely  as 
in  V.  27  and  23. . —  Dn;?i'n  are  here  the  small  in  the  figurative  sense, 
the  miserable,  the  same,  who,  chap.  11:7,  had  been  called  the 
most  miserable  sheep.  That  the  trope  is  not  here  to  be  dissolved, 
that  after  the  small  we  are  rather  to  supply  sheep,  appears  from  the 
|Xi'n  'tl'^'V,  the  smallest  of  the  sheep,  as  a  designation  of  a  miserable 
people,  in  .Ter.  49 :  20,  50  :  45.      In  Jer.    14  :  3,   the  synonymous 


ZECHARI  AH  13:7-9.  249 

li>y  stands  opposed  to  inx,  "  And  their  nobles  send  the-ir  little 
ones  to  the  waters."  Also  Jer.  48:4-14,  "iiI^'V,  which  the  Mas- 
orites  wish  to  change  without  reason  into  the  more  frequent  ^^P\, 
denotes  the  wretchedness  of  their  condition  ;  comp.  also  Ps.  lit)  :  41, 
"I  am  small  and  despised."  The  form  in  the  passage  before  us 
occurs  besides  only  in  the  name  of  the  city  Zoar.  The  ancient 
translators,  the  Greeic  as  well  as  the  Chaldee,  have,  as  we  have 
already  remarked,  taken  "I  bring  back  my  hand,"  in  a  bad  sense, 
and  then  understand,  by  the  small,  the  inferior,  in  contrast  with  the 
chief  shepherd  of  the  people.  According  to  this  entirely  arbitrary 
interpretation,  which  has  led  some,  in  reference  to  the  Seventy,  to 
the  supposition,  refuted  by  Buxtorf,  that  they  had  before  them  another 
reading,  Theodoret  gives  the  sense  :  Kal  fnioTQiifca  ri]v  x^Iqu  fiov 
inl  Tovg  /^iixfiovg  noifiivag,  xovg  ovofict  notfiivtov  Ixovrae,  isQuxg  xal 
Sidaaxrilovg,  tov  di  ngdyfiaTog  tQi^fiovg  vnuQxovrag.  The  bringing 
back  of  the  hand  of  the  Lord  upon  the  small,  here  promised,  was 
first  experienced  by  the  apostles,  and  all  those,  who  at  that  time 
from  among  the  Jews,  became  believers  in  Christ,  or  who  have  be- 
come such  in  all  succeeding  centuries  down  to  the  present  day.  In 
another  way,  by  the  unbelieving  part  of  the  people  also  ;  for  the  judg- 
ments, which  the  Lord  inflicts  upon  them,  are  on  the  one  side  indeed 
punishments  of  his  justice,  on  the  other  side,  however,  manifesta- 
tions and  means  of  his  mercy  ;  until  at  last,  when  all  Israel  is  saved, 
the  bringing  back  of  his  hand  upon  them  is  most  illustriously  mani- 
fested, and  our  prophecy  receives  its  complete  fulfilment.  —  We 
now  cast  a  look  at  the  New  Testament  citations  of  the  passage. 
The  chief  place  is  Matt.  26:  31,  3-3,  (comp.  Mark  14  :  27) :  To'tc 
Xiyn  avzolg  o  Ir^aovg '  nuvxeg  Vfiiig  a^tavSaha&rjasa&e  sv  ffjol  iv  rrj 
vvxti  rairtTj '  yeyQamat  yaq '  naiu^m  xov  noi^iva  xal  diuoxogniadtjaE- 
icei  Tor  Ttgo^ara  zrjg  noi^jrjg.  Mfxa  Ss  to  f'yeQ&rjvat,  fit  ttqou^w  Vfiag 
tig  TTJv  I'ahXuiav.  Here  the  original  is  followed,  not  the  Septuagint. 
The  figurative  mode  of  representation  retained  by  these,  the  address 
to  the  sword,  the  Lord  resolves  into  literal  language  :  "  1  will 
smite."  The  last  words,  as  the  8e  intimates,  are  of  a  consoling 
character;  an  annunciation,  that  the  Lord,  after  a  short  interruption, 
would  resume  his  pastoral  office  over  the  apostles  and  the  other 
believers,  and  therefore  an  individualizing  of  the  expression  in  Zech- 
ariah,  "  I  bring  back  my  hand  upon  them."  Hence  it  appears,  that 
the  phrase,  "  I  bring  back  the  hand,"  was  taken  by  the  Lord  in  a 
good  sense,  and  that  he  understood  by  the  small  sheep,  not  shep- 
voL.   ti.  32 


250  ZECHARIAH  13:7-9. 

herds,  according  to  the  misunderstanding  of  all  Greek  interpreters, 
{Aq.  £7il  Tovg  noif^iKVccg  ^Qa/fh.  Sym.  and  Seventy,  fiDtQoig.  Theod. 
vionsQovg)  and  the  Chaldee.  That  the  special  application  of  what 
is  said  in  Zechariah  concerning  the  dispersion  of  the  flock,  to  the 
apostles,  does  not  exclude  its  wider  import  and  reference,  we  have 
already  seen.  —  But  how  great  stress  the  Lord  laid  on  the  passage, 
appears  from  his  having  before  used  its  words  when  predicting  what 
was  to  happen  to  his  disciples,  without  expressly  citing  them,  as  he 
does  here,  because  they  had  not  rightly  understood  the  former  ref- 
erence. He  says,  John  16 :  32  :  'idov,  i'gxETai  mgrx  xal  vvv  iXiqlv&sv, 
Xva  axoQTiia&iJTE  i'y.aaTog  sic  ra  idia  aixl  ffiB  fiovov  o«jp>;t£.  Allusions 
are  found  perhaps  10  :  13,  11  :  52  (comp.  Lampe,  III.  p.  351),  and 
Luke  12  :  32. 

V.  8.  "  And  it  comes  to  pass  in  the  uihole  land,  saith  the  Lord, 
two  parts  in  the  same  are  extirpated  and  die,  and  the  third  part 
remains  therein."  After  Jerome,  Mark  and  others  would  strangely 
understand  by  ]'"?.5<n,  '^' the  whole  earth."  The  article  rather  points  to 
the  land,  with  which  the  prophet  had  constantly  been  concerned  in 
the  preceding  context,  over  whose  inhabitants  the  shepherd  of  the 
Lord  had  undertaken  the  pastoral  office ;  comp.  7  :  5,  12  :  12.  The 
true  interpretation  was  seen  by  Theodoret  and  Cyril.  —  The  expres- 
sion D:JK'~'i?  is  here,  as  2  Kings  2  :  9,  taken  from  Deut.  21  :  7.  It 
signifies  properly,  a  mouth,  i.  q.  a  mouthful,  a  mouth-portion  of  two, 
and  originated  in  the  custom  of  placing  before  those  who  were  to  be 
honored,  a  double,  or  even  a  larger  portion  of  food  ;  comp.  Gen. 
43  :  34 ;  Rosenmiiller,  A.  u.  N.  Morgenl.,  I.  p.  207.  It  then  serves, 
Deut.  I.  c,  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  to  designate  the  share  of  the  first- 
born in  the  inheritance,  who  received  a  double  portion.  In  this 
metaphorical  sense,  'i?  for  portion,  part  in  general,  the  word  does  not 
elsewhere  occur  ;  and  there  is  no  doubt,  that  Elisha,  1.  c,  when,  as 
the  first-born  of  Elias  in  a  spiritual  sense,  he  desires  a  double  por- 
tion of  his  spiritual  inheritance,  and  our  prophet  also,  borrowed  the 
expression  directly  from  Deujleronomy.  The  whole  Jewish  people 
appears  here  as  an  inheritance,  left  behind  by  the  shepherd,  who  has 
been  slain,  which  is  divided  into  three  parts;  of  which  death,  assert- 
ing the  right  of  the  first-born,  receives  two,  and  life  one,  a  division 
similar  to  that,  which,  2  Sam.  8  :  2,  was  made  of  the  Moabites  by 
David.  "  And  David  smote  the  Moabites,  and  measured  them  with 
the  measuring  line,  casting  them  down  to  the  ground,  and  meas- 
ured two  parts  for  death  and  one  part  for  life."  —  The  double  por- 


I 


ZECHARIAH  13  :  7  -  9.  25 1 

lion  of  the  inheritance  of  death  is  then  divided  again  among  the  two 
different  kinds  of  the  same.  For  tliat  we  cannot  with  Mark  explain 
'J^14'  ■■'^■?x''.  by  excidentur,  ut  exspircnt,  or  excidendo  exspirahunt,  so 
that  the  latter  indicates  only  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  former, 
but  must  rather  with  Vatablus  and  Drusius  interpret,  '*'  Pars  una 
succidetur  gladio,  et  pars  altera  exspirdbit  peste,  aut  alio  genere 
mortis,"  is  shown  by  the  parallel  passage,  Ezek.  5  :  12  :  "A  third 
part  of  thee  shall  die  with  the  pestilence,  and  with  famine  shall  they 
all  be  consumed  in  the  midst  of  thee  ;  and  a  third  part  shall  fall  by 
the  sword  round  about  thee  ;  and  I  will  scatter  a  third  part  into  all 
the  winds;  and  I  will  draw  out  a  sword  after  them."  Accordingly, 
therefore,  'n"?3''.  designates  death  by  the  hostile  sword,  and  •li^lJ''. 
death  by  pestilence,  accompanied  with  war  and  the  siege,  and  by 
famine.  This  coincidence  with  Ezekiel,  however,  is  not  by  any 
means  accidental,  or  consisting  merely  in  the  expression.  The 
prophet  rather  here  resumes  the  whole  prediction,  Ezek.  chap.  5, 
and  announces  a  second  fulfilment  of  it,  just  as  we  have  before 
shown  to  have  been  the  case  in  reference  to  a  similar  one  of  Jere- 
miah, (comp.  on  chap.  11  :  13.)  Ezekiel  had  threatened  the  peo- 
ple, that  the  Lord  would  make  a  threefold  division  of  them  on 
account  of  their  sins  ;  for  the  sword,  for  pestilence  and  for  famine, 
for  dispersion.  This  threatening  had  now  already  been  fulfilled,  but 
the  people  still  suffered  the  consequences  of  this  judgment,  as  the 
prophet  here  announces  to  them,  that  on  account  of  their  renewed 
apostasy  the  Lord  would  make  a  new  threefold  division,  as  he  after- 
wards actually  did  by  the  Romans.  Isaiah,  some  hundred  years 
before,  had  already  comprehended  the  contents  of  both  prophecies  in 
the  remarkable  picture  of  the  fortunes  of  the  covenant  people,  which 
was  presented  to  his  inward  contemplation,  when  he  was  conse- 
crated to  the  prophetic  office.  He  predicts,  chap.  6  :  11,  in  the  first 
place  the  entire  desolation  of  the  land,  and  the  carrying  away  of  its 
inhabitants  into  distant  regions.  This  cannot  possibly  refer  to  any 
thing  else  than  the  Babylonish  exile.  The  predictions  of  the  prophet 
in  reference  to  the  predecessors  of  the  Chaldeans,  the  Syrians,  and 
Assyrians,  announced  from  the  beginning,  prosperity.  This  part  of 
the  prediction  is  accordingly,  in  Ezek.  chap.  5,  more  fully  carried 
out.  It  is  further  asserted  :  "  Again  there  is  in  the  land  a  tenth 
part  of  its  former  inhabitants,  but  it  shall  be  destroyed  anew."  It 
IS  self-evident,  that  by  this  tenth  part  is  not  to  be  understood  the 
few  people  of  the  lowest  order,  who,  according  to  Jer.   chap,  40, 


252  ZECHARIAH  13:  7-9. 

under  the  superintendence  of  Gedaliah,  were  left  behind  in  the  land 
by  the  Chaldeans.  These  were  much  too  unimportant  to  be  noticed 
in  this  very  general  sketch.  We  are  rather  obliged  to  refer  it  to  the 
new  destruction  of  the  national  independence  of  the  people  by  the 
Romans.  The  phrase,  "  a  tenth  part,"  here  accurately  expresses, 
as  the  nature  of  the  case  required,  the  relation  of  the  returned  exiles 
to  the  former  citizens  of  Judah.  This  second  destruction  is  that 
of  which  Zechariah  here  speaks.  What  Isaiah  moreover  predicted 
of  the  holy  seed,  which  should  be  preserved  amidst  the  ruin  of  the 
whole  people,  and  attain  to  prosperity,  completely  harmonizes  with 
V,  9.  —  The  third  part.  The  foregoing  indefinite  two  parts  is  de- 
fined by  the  article.  For,  if  besides  two  parts,  only  the  third  part 
still  remains,  these  two  parts  must  be  two  thirds.  Overlooking  this, 
Winer  asserts,  s.  v.  "'5,  erroneously,  that  d;3K/"'3,  otherwise  than  in 
the  remaining  places,  here  designates  precisely  two  thirds.  It  first 
appears  by  JT'ty'Sts/n,  that  two  parts  of  a  whole  divided  into  three 
parts  are  intended. 

V.  9.  "  And  I  bring  the  third  part  into  the  fire,  and  purify  them, 
as  silver  is  purified,  and  prove  them,  as  gold  is  proved.  They  will 
call  upon  my  name  and  I  ivill  hear  them.  I  say,  They  are  my  people ; 
and  they  anstver,  Jehovah  my  God."  —  "  To  cause  to  go  through 
the  fire,"  is  the  techinal  term  for  the  purification  of  metals,  comp. 
Num.  31:23;  "  I  purify  them,"  &.c.,  indicates,  both  how  highly 
the  Lord  esteems  those  who  are  to  be  purified,  —  they  are  compared 
with  the  most  precious  metals,  —  and  how  difficult  this  purification 
is,  how  greatly  the  furnace  of  affliction  must  be  heated  for  them. 
That  the  latter  idea  is  not  to  be  excluded,  is  shown  by  the  passage 
Is.  48 :  10 ;  "  Behold,  I  have  purified  thee,  yet  not  as  silver,  I  have 
chosen  thee  in  the  furnace  of  affliction."  While  the  Lord  there  de- 
clares, that  he  would  be  satisfied,  if,  by  the  Babylonish  exile,  only  the 
coarsest  dross  of  sin  was  separated,  if  among  the  people  only  the 
first  beginnings  of  true  repentance  and  a  new  life  appeared  ;  that  he 
would  not  purify  them  as  silver,  which,  if  it  is  to  be  entirely  cleans- 
ed, must  be  melted  seven  times  (comp.  Ps.  12:  7),  but  before  the 
purification  is  entirely  completed,  while  they  are  still  in  the  furnace 
of  aflSiction,  he  will  receive  them  again  into  favor; — he  here  de- 
clares of  the  second  purification,  directly  the  opposite.  —  The  Lord 
will  not  be  satisfied  with  this  until  he  has  removed  all  dross.  Pre- 
cisely as  here  the  verbs  f]:)^  and  jnn  are  combined,  Jer.  9:6;  see 
besides  6  :  30,  Ps.   76  :   10,    Ezek.  22  :  18,  Job  23  :   10.  —  The 


I 


ZECHARIAH  13  :  7  -  9.  263 

phrase  T]iT\]  DK*?  N"3p^  has  the  double  meaning,  to  call  out  the  name 
of  the  Lord  with  emotion,  to  praise  him,  comp.  1  Chron.  16  :  8,  with 
Is.  44  :  5,  and  in  the  same  manner  to  call  upojt  the  name  of  the 
Lord.  In  both  cases  the  3  is  a  designation  of  the  object  on  which  the 
emotion  of  him,  who  calls  out,  or  who  calls  upon,  rests;  properly  to 
call  upon  or  to  call  out,  since  it  is  the  name  of  the  Lord,  with  which 
one  has  to  do,  which  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  "  mere  sound  and 
vapor,"  but  as  a  copy  and  outward  representation  of  his  nature.  Of 
course,  therefore,  the  expression  ni^n''  Qtyn  '<"^D,,  is  not  simply  sy- 
nonymous with  'n'ip]  N'lp^,  or  riKT.  Sjs!  X"^p^  The  former  can  never, 
like  the  latter,  refer  to  the  ungodly,  who  call  upon  the  Lord  hypo- 
critically, or  at  least  only  outwardly  and  superficially.  It  stands 
therefore  also  Is.  64  :  6,  with  entire  suitableness  in  the  parallelism 
with  "  to  take  hold  upon  the  Lord."  It  is  mentioned  in  Joel  3  :  5, 
as  the  only  condition  of  salvation  :  "  Every  one  who  calls  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  shall  be  saved."  "  He  will  call  upon  my  name, 
and  I  will  hear  him,"  forms  an  antithesis  with,  "  And  as  he  call- 
ed and  they  did  not  hear,  so  they  call  and  I  hear  not,  saith  the 
Lord."  Chap.  7  :  13.  In  the  last  words  the  preter  Ti^nx  is  inten- 
tionally joined  with  the  fut.  "'J^X',  (properly,  as  Riickert,  "  I  have 
spoken,  My  people  is  he ;  and  he  says,  Jehovah,  my  God,")  to  in- 
dicate that,  the  speaking  of  the  Lord  must  necessarily  precede  that 
of  the  people ;  precisely  as,  according  to  chap.  12  :  10,  the  people 
first  offer  up  prayer  to  the  Lord,  and  are  seized  with  deep  distress 
for  their  sins,  after  the  Lord  has  poured  out  upon  them  the  spirit  of 
grace.  The  two  modes  accordingly  signify  a  relative  past  and 
future,  just  as,  Is.  chap.  53,  the  suffering  of  the  servant  of  God  is 
expressed  mostly  by  praeters,  the  glorification  by  futures,  although  in 
reality  both  were  still  future.  Parallel,  even  in  respect  to  this  inter- 
change of  prcet.  and  fut.,  is  Hos.  2  :  25,  "  And  I  say  to  them,  who 
are  not  my  people,  My  people  thou  ;    and  they  will  say,  My  God." 


254  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 


Chap.  14. 

A  new  scene  presents  itself  to  the  prophet.  All  people  of  the 
earth  are  assembled  by  the  Lord  against  his  holy  city ;  this  is  taken  ; 
the  greatest  part  of  its  inhabitants  are  cut  off  by  the  sword,  or  car- 
ried away  into  captivity,  v.  1,  2.  Then,  however,  the  Lord  inter- 
feres for  his  people,  hitherto  preserved  uninjured,  by  his  wonderful 
providence,  and  the  judgment  is  suddenly  directed  from  the  church 
of  the  Lord  to  her  enemies.  The  Lord  appears  in  majesty  upon 
the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  while  an  earthquake  announces  his  com- 
ing to  judgment,  and  fills  all  with  terror,  the  mountain  divides  in 
the  midst,  so  that  henceforth  the  people  of  the  Lord  find  a  safe  and 
easy  way  of  flight  through  the  lengthened  valley  of  Jehoshaphat. 
Then  the  Lord  appears,  with  all  his  saints,  to  establish  his  kingdom 
on  the  earth,  v.  3-5.  At  first,  thick  darkness  reigns;  then  follows, 
for  a  short  time,  a  mixture  of  light  and  darkness,  a  twilight ;  and 
lastly,  when  least  expected,  breaks  the  full  day  of  salvation  for  the 
elect,  V.  6,  7.  Then  a  stream  of  living  water  pours  itself  forth  from 
Jerusalem  through  the  whole  land,  communicating  life  and  fruitful- 
ness,  V.  8.  The  Theocracy,  hitherto  confined  to  one  single  land,  now 
embraces  the  whole  earth,  v.  9.  In  order  that  Jerusalem  alone  may 
be  exalted,  all  hills  in  the  whole  land  are  levelled,  the  city  rises  in 
splendor  from  its  ruins,  henceforth  secure  from  every  change,  to 
enjoy  the  divine  favor,  v.  10,  11.  After  the  enemies,  who  have  be- 
besieged  Jerusalem,  have  been  chastised  by  a  divine  judgment,  v. 
12-  15,  the  remnant  of  them  will  turn  to  the  Lord,  and  annually 
come  to  Jerusalem,  there  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  v.  16. 
A  heavy  punishment  will  overtake  those  who  neglect  this  duty,  v. 
17  - 19.  The  distinction  between  the  profane  and  sacred  will  then 
entirely  cease,  and  also  the  mingling  of  the  pious  and  ungodly,  as  it 
existed  in  the  former  Theocracy,  v.  20,  21. 

The  interpreters  mostly  suppose  this  prophecy  to  be  only  a  re- 
sumption and  farther  extension  of  that  contained  in  chap.  12;  comp. 
e.  g.  Michaelis  on  the  passage,  Hitzig,  1.  c.  p.  40.  But,  for  this 
opinion,  there  is  in  the  first  place  no  ground  whatever.  The  proph- 
ecy receives  an  entirely  new  addition  ;  of  a  connexion  with  chap.  12, 
and  a  reference  to  it,  there  is  no  trace.  Both  prophecies  give  a  cycle 
of  events  independent  of  one  another,  in  which  what  follows  is  al- 
ways connected  with  what  precedes,  by  the  constantly  recurring  in 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  255 

this  day.  On  the  contrary,  there  are  not  wanting  grounds  for  the 
opposite  assumption,  that  the  two  prophecies  refer  to  different  events 
and  times.  In  chap.  12,  Jerusalem  appears  indeed  as  closely  be- 
sieged, but  not  as  taken  ;  fro-m  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the 
princes  of  Judah,  acccording  to  v.  5,  expect  deliverance.  From 
them,  according  to  v.  6,  7,  the  enemy  is  vanquished  without  the  city, 
and  before  he  could  take  it.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  the  help  of  the 
Lord  does  not  come  until  the  city  has  been  taken,  and  the  greatest 
part  of  the  inhabitants  carried  away  into  captivity.  According  to 
chap.  14  :  14,  Judah  fights  in  Jerusalem.  According  to  chap.  12:7, 
he  gains  the  victory  without  the  city,  which  is  thus  delivered.  Of 
such  splendid  promises  for  the  people  of  the  Lord  after  the  overthrow 
of  their  enemies,  as  we  here  find,  there  is  in  chap.  12  no  trace  ;  all 
continues  in  the  usual  track.  The  result,  thus  obtained  by  internal 
evidence,  is  confirmed  also  by  a  comparison  of  the  Apocalypse. 
There,  a  twofold  great  oppression  of  the  church  of  God  in  the  last 
times  is  plainly  described.  The  first,  chap.  19:19-21.  Then 
follows  the  so-called  reign  of  a  thousand  years,  a  condition  of  the 
church  better  than  the  preceding,  but  still  without  a  removal  of  the 
existing  earthly  relations.  To  this  period  chap.  12  refers.  The 
second,  chap.  20  :  8,  9.  Templed  by  Satan,  the  heathen  nations 
from  all  the  four  ends  of  the  earth,  once  more  surround  the  camp 
of  the  saints  and  the  beloved  city.  That  this  prophecy,  as  well  as 
that  of  Ezekiel,  chap.  37  and  38,  is  thus  parallel  with  the  one  before 
us,  and  of  course  that  it,  and  not  that  of  chap.  12,  must  be  compared 
with  that  of  Ezekiel,  appears  from  the  fact,  that  here,  altogether  the 
same  results  of  the  victory  granted  by  the  Lord  are  mentioned,  as 
there.  According  to  Zechariah,  in  like  manner  as  Ezekiel  and  the 
Apocalypse,  Jerusalem  is  gloriously  rebuilt  immediately  after,  the 
Lord  establishes  in  her  his  dwelling-place,  there  will  be  no  more 
exile,  a  stream  of  living  water  goes  forth  from  her,  all  the  ungodly 
are  excluded,  &c. 


V.  1.  "  Behold  a  day  comes  to  the  Lord,  and.  thy  booty  is  divided 
in  the  midst  of  thee."  The  phrase  ni^n^S  ^<|"Dr  is  not  to  be  explain- 
ed, "  the  day  of  the  Lord  comes,"  (Riickert,  "  Behold  the  day  of 
Jehovah  comes,")  for  the  h  can  stand  instead  of  stat.  constr.  only 
when  this  cannot  be  used,  therefore  only  when  an  indefinite  thing  is 


266  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

to  be  designated  ;  while  the  second  noun,  however,  as  here  Jehovah, 
is  definite,  comp.  Ewald,  p.  582,  603  ;  therefore,  not  "  a  day  of  the 
Lord,"  for  then  we  cannot  see  why  DV  should  not  be  joined  with 
^)^!'2 ;  rather,  "  a  day  comes  to  the  Lord,"  so  that  n\n;S  belongs  to 
X3.  The  designated  day,  however,  comes  to  the  Lord,  not  only  in 
so  far  as  he  introduces  it,  but  also  and  chiefly,  in  so  far  as  he  is 
glorified  in  it.  AH  other  days  have  come  rather  to  men,  this  alone 
is  proper  to  the  Lord.  Thus  it  is  said,  Ezek.  39  :  13,  of  the  day  of 
the  overthrow  of  Gog,  'l^^H  Di\  "  the  day  of  my  being  honored, 
saith  the  Lord."  Thus,  according  to  Is.  2  :  12,  the  day  of  the  Lord 
comes  upon  all  that  is  high  and  exalted,  and,  according  to  v.  17,  the 
Lord  alone  is  exalted  in  that  day.  —  As  a  day  of  the  Lord  is  almost 
always  spoken  of  in  reference  to  the  judgments  to  be  executed  by 
him,  the  question  arises  whether  these  judgments,  which  serve  to 
glorify  the  Lord,  here  overtake  merely  the  heathen  nations,  or 
whether  the  sufferings  of  the  church  of  God  here  described,  are  to 
be  considered  as  chastisements ;  whether  we  are  therefore  to  assume, 
that  after  the  great  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  and  regeneration,  de- 
scribed chap.  12 :  10,  13  :  6,  a  predominance  of  the  tares  among 
the  wheat,  a  mingling  of  true  believers  and  of  hypocrites  in  the 
church  of  God,  is  again  to  be  expected,  so  that  here  the  last  glorify- 
ing of  the  church  of  God  is  described,  the  last  verifying  of  the  prov- 
erb, that  judgment  must  begin  at  the  house  of  God.  This  latter 
supposition  is  indisputably  correct.  It  receives  confirmation  particu- 
larly from  V.  2.  The  prophet  shows  already  by  the  expression,  that 
those  who  are  carried  away  into  captivity,  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
suffering  innocently,  that  those  who  are  outwardly  cut  off  are  rather 
also  spiritually  cut  off,  and  those  who  are  outwardly  retained,  as 
also  inwardly  quickened.  —  Thy  spoil.  The  prophet  addresses 
Jerusalem,  the  seat  of  the  kingdom  of  God  at  his  time,  under  whose 
image  this  kingdom  presented  itself  to  his  inward  vision,  exactly  as 
in  the  Apocalypse.  How  little  we  are  here  to  adhere  to  the  letter, 
is  evident  from  the  figurative  character  of  the  whole  description, 
which  no  one  can  deny  ;  especially  the  impossibility  that  all  nations 
of  the  whole  earth  should  be  collected  against  the  outward  Jerusa- 
lem to  battle,  and,  after  being  vanquished,  should  annually  go  up 
there,  in  order  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  &c. — In  thy 
midst.  Strengthening  this,  Jerome  says,  "  Solet  frequenter  acci- 
dere,  nt  qua  subito  impetu  in  civitate  dircpta  sunt,foris  in  agro,  aut 
in  solitudine  dividantur,  ne  forte  hastes  superveniant ;  his  autem  tan- 


ZECHARIAH  Chah.  14.  257 

turn  vialorum  pundus  incumbet,  ut,  quce  direpta  sunt,  in  civitatis 
7iicdio  dividantur  pro  securitate  victoriae."  The  strange  quid  pro 
(/wo  of  the  Chaldee,  "  divident  Jilii  Israel  opes  populorum  in  medio 
till  Jerusolem,"  sufficiently  shows  itself  as  such  by  the  comparison 
of  V.  2.  The  opinion  of  Mark,  who,  after  several  others,  particu- 
larly the  fathers  (Theod.,  Cyril,  Euseb.  Demonstr.  6.  18,  Jerome), 
here  finds  the  description  of  the  captivity  by  the  Romans,  is  already 
sufficiently  refuted  by  the  fact,  that  it  requires  the  prophet,  in  v.  3, 
to  make  a  sudden  transition  from  the  literal  to  the  spiritual  Zion. 

V.  2.  "  And  I  collect  all  the  heathen  against  Jerusalem  to  battle, 
and  the  city  is  taken,  and  the  houses  plundered,  and  the  toomen  dis- 
honored, and  the  half  of  the  city  go  forth  as  captives,  and  the  rem- 
nant of  the  people  is  not  cut  off  from  the  city."  We  will  not  here 
engage  in  doctrinal  inquiries,  how  it  can  be  reconciled  that  the  same 
effect,  the  collection  of  the  heathen  against  Jerusalem,  which  is  here 
attributed  to  God,  is,  in  the  Apocalypse  20  :  8,  attributed  to  Satan,  a 
phenomenon  which  is  known  to  be  often  met  with  in  the  Scriptures 
If,  however,  God  must  employ  the  evil  as  a  means  of  realizing  his 
purpose  concerning  the  world  ;  if  Satan,  who  appears  in  Job  in  poetic 
representation  among  the  angels  of  God,  is,  though  against  his  own 
will,  his  servant,  as  Ashur  is  called  the  rod  of  anger  in  his  hand, 
Nebuchadnezzar,  his  servant ;  if,  without  the  will  of  God,  he  cannot 
hurt  a  single  hair  of  the  church  of  God,  the  constant  aim  of  his 
assaults  (comp.  chap.  3);  it  easily  appears  that  the  contradiction  is 
only  apparent,  and  such  as  daily  occurs,  without  any  one  thinking 
it  necessary  to  deny  the  one  or  the  other  side  of  the  antithesis.  — 
The  J^ord  collects  the  nations  to  the  judgment  in  the  first  instance 
upon  Jerusalem  and  then  upon  themselves.  Parallel  is  Ezek.  39  :  2, 
"  The  Lord  brings  Gog  out  of  the  extreme  north,  and  conducts  him 
to  the  mountains  of  Israel,  there  to  destroy  him."  Sx  does  not 
stand  as  Rosenmiiller  asserts,  for  hy,  but  it  designates  merely  the 
direction  according  to  which  the  heathen  were  collected.  The  hos- 
tile purpose  is  first  expressed  by  the  following  "  to  war."  The  phrase, 
"  The  houses  are  plundered,  and  the  women  dishonored,"  is  taken 
from  Is.  13  :  16,  nj^:t5fn  DH'K'Pi  QD'ii^a  -idk;:.  —  The  following  mem- 
ber is  translated  by  most  interpreters,  "  And  the  half  of  the  city  shall 
go  forth  into  captivity."  And  we  here  avail  ourselves  of  an  opportu- 
nity to  correct  a  very  ancient  error  of  commentators  and  lexicograph- 
ers, (comp.  even  Ewald,  p.  315.)  It  is  altogether  a  mistake,  that 
nSiJ,  a  word  which  it  is  remarkable  never  occurs  in  the  Pentateuch, 

VOL.   II.  33 


258  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

although  the  thing  signified  is  there  so  often  spoken  of,  and  except  in 
Amos  1  :  15,  only  in  the  writings  composed  during  the  exile,  ever 
signifies  captivity.  Even  the  form,  the  pnrtic.  femin.,  should  have 
made  critics  distrustful  of  this  opinion.  For  the  participial  form  can 
never  constitute  abstract  nouns  ;  comp.  Ewald,  p.  236,  237.  The 
standing  phrase  nSl  J 5  Xl.*^  should  have  been  another  ground  of  sus- 
picion; comp.,  besides  this  passage,  Amos  I  :  15,  Jer.  48  :  7,  11.  For, 
although  3  often  stands  with  verbs  of  motion,  when  the  thing  moved 
remains  in  the  place  or  in  the  condition,  yet  there  is  no  instance  in 
which  this  connexion  is  so  regular  and  uniform.  The  following  is 
the  correct  view.  nSljrj,  the  captive,  relates  to  the  personification  of 
the  people  carried  away  into  captivity,  as  of  a  woman,  as  we  see,  e.  g., 
the  figure  thoroughly  carried  out  in  Is.  47.  It  is  a  continuation  of 
this  trope,  when,  in  the  Book  of  Ezra,  in  numerous  places,  the  pos- 
terity of  those  who  have  been  carried  away  are  designated  as  "sons 
of  the  captive.'-  For  that  we  are  not,  as  is  commonly  done,  to  trans- 
late, "  sons  of  the  captivity,"  appears  from  Ezra  8:35:  "Those 
who  had  come  out  of  the  captivity,  the  sons  of  the  captive,  present  a 
burnt  offering  to  God."  If  we  there  translate,  "the  sons  of  the  cap- 
tivity,"  an  empty  tautology  arises  ;  comp.  also  2:1:  "  These  are 
the  sons  of  the  city,  who  returned  out  of  the  captive,  which  Nebu- 
chadnezzar had  carried  away."  Of  all  the  passages  which  Winer 
and  Gesenius  (Thes.  s.  v.)  cite,  for  the  meaning  captivity,  the  only 
plausible  one  is  1  Chron.  5 :  22.  But,  even  there,  nSijn  -\\\  since 
the  interpretation  usque  ad  exilium  is  so  groundless,  can  be  very 
well  translated  "  to  the  captive."  Accordingly,  therefore,  nSijg  in 
this  passage  signifies  in  captiva,  "  being  in  their  condition  as  cap- 
tives."—  "  T/je  captive,"  with  the  article,  on  account  of  the  antithesis 
with  that  part  of  the  people,  who  had  remained  behind  in  the  city, 
mentioned  in  what  follows.  —  "  And  the  remnant  of  the  people  iinll 
not  he  exterminated  from  the  city.''  There  is  here  a  plain  contrast 
with  the  former  judgment  upon  Jerusalem,  executed  by  the  Baby- 
lonians. The  advantage  enjoyed  by  those  who  remained  behind, 
at  the  first  deportation,  over  those  who  were  carried  away,  was  only 
apparent ;  it  was  only  a  reprieve :  it  was  here  to  be  real  and  last- 
ing. The  prophet  alludes  to  the  similar  passages  even  in  the  ex- 
pression (comp.  Jer.  29  :  16),  "  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  to  the  king, 
who  sits  on  the  throne  of  David,  and  to  the  whole  people  who  dwell 
in  this  city,  your  brethren,  nSiJ3  D^j-^x  5Nv;  xS  i:t'N;,  behold,!  send 
upon    them   the    sword,  and  the   famine,  and   the    pestilence,   and 


ZKCHARIAH  Chap.  14.  259 

scatter  them  in  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth."  2  Kings  25  :  11  : 
"i^i'^  0''?^?5i'in  Dj^n  '^r)\  nxi,  "  were  carried  into  captivity  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar." The  expression,  "  He  will  not  be  exterminated  from 
the  city,"  is  chosen  in  reference  to  the  forms  continually  occur- 
ring in  the  Pentateuch  bN-jtV'D  N^nn  J^g^n  nnip.Ji,  or  ^Nlt^':  r\nx?D, 
or  VT^^'r?,  nt)3Ji.  The  carrying  away  of  the  half  into  captivity  was 
at  the  same  time  a  cutting  of  them  off  from  the  city,  from  the  The- 
ocracy, because  this  carrying  away  overtook  them  as  a  deserved 
divine  judgment.*  The  portion  of  the  people  who  remained  true  to 
the  Lord  were  saved  from  this  judgment.  That,  apart  from  this 
reference,  the  phrase,  "  He  is  cut  ojf'  from  the  city,"  is  not  to  be  ex- 
plained, with  Winer,  by  ex  whe  patria  ejectus,  in  exilium  actus  est, 
is  self-evident.  As  parallel  in  sense  we  have  yet  to  compare  Isaiah 
4:3:  "  Every  one  who  shall  be  left  behind  in  Zion  and  remain  in 
Jerusalem,  he  shall  be  called  holy,  every  one  who  is  enrolled  for  life 
in  Jerusalem."  Here,  also,  to  be  spared  during  the  judgment  of 
God,  and  to  be  a  true  member  of  his  kingdom,  are  interchangeable 
ideas. 

V.  3.  The  purification  of  the  church  of  God  is  now  completed, 
and  the  Lord,  following  the  course  of  his  love  towards  her,  can  grant 
her  deliverance  and  prosperity.  —  "  And  the  Lord  goes  forth,  and, 
fights  against  those  heathen,  as  in  his  day  of  confict,  in  the  day  of 
battle."  KV;  is  a  military  technical  term,  comp.  Is.  42  :  13  ;  "  The 
Lord  will  go  forth  as  a  hero,  as  a  man  of  war,  awaken  zeal."  Hab. 
3  :  13,  "  Thou  goest  forth  for  the  salvation  of  thy  people."  More  as 
a  general  contrast  to  the  rest,  in  which  the  Lord  seems  to  indulge, 
so  long  as  he  delivers  up  his  church  a  prey  to  her  oppressors,  Ni" 
occurs  in  the  passage,  —  very  explanatory  of  the  relation  of  the 
verse  before  us  to  the  preceding, —  Is.  26  :  20,  21  :  "  Up,  my  peo- 
ple, go  into  thy  closets,  shut  thy  doors  after  thee.  Wait  but  a  little, 
until  my  anger. is  overpast.  For  behold,  the  Lord  goeth  out  from 
his  place  to  punish  the  wickedness  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth 


*  The  extirpation  from  the  Theocracy,  threatened  against  the  transgressors 
of  the  law,  is  by  no  means  to  be  limited  to  the  punishment  of  death  ;  comp.,  on 
the  contrary,  Ezr.  7  :  2G,  10  :  8 ;  but,  which  the  general  expression  implies, 
referred  to  every  thing,  whereby  God,  according  to  the  different  degrees  of  their 
guilt,  either  immediately,  or  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  magistracy 
established  by  him,  expels  his  disobedient  subjects  from  his  kingdom.  The  cor- 
rectness of  this  remark  will  be  confirmed  by  an  independent  examination  of 
tiie  subject. 


260  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

against  him."  DnS:  with  5  of  a  person,  always  "to  strive  against 
any  one";  see  on  v.  14.  The  translation  of  the  Seventy,  Kal  t^sXfv- 
asTui,  KVQiog  yal  nctnaiuiiTui  iv  xoig  E&rsaiv  ixitvoig,  has  served  to 
strengthen  Theodoret  and  Cyril  in  their  mistaken  reference  of  the 
prophecy  to  the  destruction  by  the  Romans.  The  former  remarks  : 
nagaxa^tini  dt,  ovy.  'lovdaiai'  VTtiQfxaxoiv,  alia  xar  ixei'ioiv  axQaxriywv. 
The  phrase,  "  as  in  the  day  of  his  combat,"  &c.,  is  explained  by 
most  interpreters,  "  as  he  is  wont  to  combat,"  and  referred  to  all  the 
combats,  which  the  Lord  engaged  in  for  his  people  ;  comp.  e.  g.  Jos. 
10  :  10,  Judges  4  :  15,  20,  1  Sam.  7:  10.  Others,  on  the  contrary, 
assume  a  special  reference  to  the  combat  of  the  Lord  against  the 
Egyptians.  So,  after  the  example  of  the  Chaldee,  Jerome  :  "  Nunc 
egrediiur  et  pi-ccliatur,  sicut  in  die  certaminis,  quando  Pharaonem 
in  mart  submersit  rubro,  ef  pro  Israclitico  populo  dimicavit."  This 
latter  reference  is  plainly  to  be  preferred.  For  we  are  led  to  one 
particular  event  by  the  expression,  "  as  in  his  day  of  combat  "  ;  the 
suf.  refers  to  the  compound  idea.  The  judgment  of  the  Lord  upon 
the  Egyptians  is  expressly  called  a  combat,  a  fight,  Exod.  14  :14, 
15 :  3  sq.  And  the  deliverance  from  Egypt  so  far  surpasses  all 
later  ones,  that  it  is  considered  as  the  deliverance,  y.ax  f^oxn^,  and 
those  of  a  later  period,  in  order  to  designate  their  greatness,  are  com- 
pared with  it,  without  distinguishing  them  by  a  more  particular  de- 
scription from  the  rest;  comp.  especially  Is.  11  :  11  ;  "  Then  will 
the  Lord  stretch  out  his  hand  a  second  time,"  &.c.  Among  the 
weapons  with  which  the  Lord  contends,  only  the  earthquake,  and 
corruption  inflicted  upon  his  enemies,  are  here  mentioned  ;  Ezekiel 
is  more  full  in  the  description  of  them. 

V.  4.  "  A7id  his  feet  stand  in  that  day  on  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
which  lies  before  Jerusalem,  eastward,  and  the  Mount  of  Olives  is 
split  in  the  midst,  from  east  to  west,  a  very  great  valley,  and  a  half 
of  the  mountain  gives  way  towards  the  north,  and  a  half  towards  the 
south."  The  question  arises,  why  the  Lord  appears  here  as  stand- 
ing precisely  on  the  Mount  of  Olives.  The  answer  is  furnished  by  the 
subjoined,  "  which  lies  before  Jerusalem  eastward."  For  these  words, 
as  a  mere  geographical  notice  for  the  contemporaries  of  the  prophet, 
who  had  the  Mount  of  Olives  always  in  view,  would  have  been  en- 
tirely superfluous  ;  they  could  designate  the  position  of  the  mountain 
only  for  the  purpose  of  intimating  that  this  gave  the  Lord  occasion  to 
select  it  for  his  station.  The  Mount  of  Olives  lay  before  and  above 
Jerusalem,  it  afforded  the  best  position  for  overlooking  the  city,  from 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  261 

It  therefore  the  Lord  orders  the  battle  against  his  enemies  found  in 
it,  and  adopts  his  measures  for  the  deliverance  of  his  people  ;  from 
there  particularly,  he,  before  whom  thfe  mountains  flow  down,  makes 
for  them  a  way  of  escape,  that  they  may  not  be  judged  with  the 
ungodly  heathen.  Entirely  unmeaning,  therefore,  is  the  remark  of 
Burk  :  "  Textus  montem  sic  prcucise  et  determinate  dtscrihit,  ut  lie 
ad  allegoriam  dilahalur  intcrpres."  That  the  cleaving  of  the 
mountain  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  effect  of  an  earthquake,  seems  to 
be  implied  in  v.  5.  The  earthquake  is  also  mentioned,  Is.  29  :  6, 
among  the  punishments  which  the  Lord  inflicts  on  the  enemies  of 
Zion :  "  By  the  Lord  shalt  thou  be  visited  with  thunder  and  earth- 
quake (t^^l),  and  a  loud  voice,  with  storm  and  wind,  and  with  the 
flame  of  a  consuming  fire."  The  passage,  however,  which  the 
prophet  seems  to  have  distinctly  in  view,  is  that  of  Ezek.  38:  19,  20, 
"  In  that  day  there  will  be  a  great  earthquake  over  the  land  of  Israel. 
And  before  me  quaked  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  the  fowls  of  heaven, 
and  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and  every  multitude  that  throngs  the  earth, 
and  all  men,  which  are  on  the  earth  ;  and  the  mountains  will  be 
destroyed  and  the  hills  fall,  and  every  wall  will  fall  to  the  earth."  This 
earthquake,  threatening  destruction  to  the  enemies,  is  a  signal  for 
flight  to  the  believers.  For  they  fear  to  be  consumed  by  the  divine 
judgment  with  the  heathen,  in  the  midst  of  whom  they  are  placed  ; 
as  the  prophet  admonishes  the  exiles  still  in  Babylon  to  flee  in  haste, 
that  they  may  not  be  likewise  smitten  by  the  judgments  which 
threaten  her;  comp.  2  :  10  :  "  Ha  !  ha,  escape  from  the  north  coun- 
try;" V.  11  :  "  Ha,  Zion  deliver  thyself,  thou  inhabitant  of  the  city 
of  Babel."  And,  as  Jeremiah  had  already  done  before  him,  chap. 
51  :  6  :  "  Flee  out  of  Babel  and  deliver  each  one  his  soul,  that  ye 
be  not  destroyed  each  one  for  his  misdeeds,  for  it  is  the  time  of  ven- 
geance for  the  Lord,  he  renders  to  her  the  reward."  —  While  the 
believers  therefore  are  desiring  flight,  the  Lord  opens  for  them  the 
way  by  the  same  earthquake  that  brings  destruction  to  the  enemy. 
Whoever,  as  in  the  present  instance,  where  there  was  a  real  dan- 
ger in  delay,  wished  to  escape  by  speedy  flight  from  Jerusalem,  met 
with  no  inconsiderable  hindrance  in  the  Mount  of  Olives,  bordering 
on  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  which  David  in  his  flight  had  to  ascend, 
(comp.  2  Sam.  15  :  30.)  This  was  removed  when  the  Lord  divided 
the  mountain  ;  the  flying  multitude  of  believers  rushed  through  the 
lengthened  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  now,  when  they  were  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  divine  judgments,  these  fell  with  unrestrained  vio- 


262  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

lence  upon  the  enemies  of  God,  as  formerly  upon  Sodom,  wlien  Lot 
had  reached  Zoar.  Tliat  the  vvho-le  representation  is  figurative,  that 
the  main  thought,  the  deliverance  of  the  believers,  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  enemies,  is  merely  clothed  in  imagery  taken  from  the  local 
relations  of  Jerusalem,  is  so  obvious,  that  whoever  does  not  see  it 
without  farther  proof,  is  hardly  capable  of  being  convinced.  In  refer- 
ence to  the  manner  of  the  division  of  the  mountain,  considerable  errors 
are  found  in  several  interpreters,  particularly  Theodoret  and  Cyril, 
who  are  led  astray  by  the  false  translation  of  the  Seventy,  and  Jerome, 
whose  wards  RosenmiiUer  gives  without  further  comment,  and  of 
course  without  remarking,  that  they  darken  instead  of  illuminating 
the  text.  They  falsely  assume  a  fourfoJd  division.  Theodoret :  eItk 
Xsysi,  OTC  diuLQS&TjdEiai  Ttrgaxoc  to  oqos,  wg  to  fisv  x«t  uvctioloig,  to  ds 
xaicc  5vaiJ.ceg,  to  ds  ncna  §0Qquv,  to  8k  xaia  voxov  ^^uiQrjaai.  But  it  is 
only  one  simple  division  of  the  mountain,  which  is  spoken  of,  in 
which,  in  much  the  same  manner  as  formerly,  when  the  Jordan  was 
divided,  the  one  half  goes  towards  the  north,  the  other  towards  the 
south,  and  so  from  west  to  east,  from  Jerusalem  towards  the  Jordan, 
a  great  valley  is  formed.  VVDQ  is  rightly  explained  by  Mark : 
"  Won  ah  hoc,  aut  illo  latere,  aut  parte  exirema  tantuin,  neque  in 
plures  partes,  quam  dims,  sed  mcdius  in  duas  fere  ccquales.^'  "  To- 
wards the  east  and  towards  the  west,"  does  not  indeed  point  out  the 
direction  in  which  the  two  halves  draw  back,  but  the  direction  of 
the  opening ;  the  mountain  was  not  cleaved  in  its  length,  but 
breadth.  An  occasion  for  this  mistake  has  been  given  by  not  ob- 
serving the  |D  in  VVp^-  Lastly,  we  are  still  informed  whither  the 
two  halves  recede,  not  indeed  toward  the  west,  for  then  the  miracle 
would  not  have  availed  believers,  but  towards  the  north  and  south. 
^<U,  instead  of  the  more  usual  X'J,  (comp.  Ewald,  p.  453,)  is  regarded 
by  most  interpreters  as  accus.  to  "  a  valley,"  but  it  can  well  be  taken 
as  nominat.  in  opposition  to  the  noun  implied  in  what  precedes,  rent, 
fissure. 

V.  5.  "  And  ye  flee  into  my  mountain  valley  ;  for  it  tvill  reach  to 
Azal,  as  ye  fled  before  the  earthquake  in  the  days  of  Uzziah  the 
king  ofJudah,  and  there  comes  the  Lord  my  God,  all  holy  ones  toith 
thee."  "'!iri"N\;  0^*0^,  not,  with  Mark,  per  vallem,  but  ad  vallem.  '2, 
which  appears  to  confirm  the  former  interpretation,  is  explained  ac- 
cording to  the  second,  which  alone  can  be  grammatically  justified  by 
the  circumstance,  that  no  one  in  the  flight  would  think  of  the  valley 
of  .Tehoshaphat,   so  long   as   it  was  enclosed    by  mountains.     The 


ZECHAKIAU  Chap.  14.     '  263 

lengthening  of  the  valley  gives  accordingly  the  reason  for  fleeing 
into  it.  —  The  mountain  valley  of  the  Lord,  the  valley  of  Jehosha- 
phat,  (comp.  p.  G5  sq.),  not  merely  the  valley  between  the  two  halves 
of  the  Monnt  of  Olives,  which  here  comes  under  consideration  only 
as  a  lengthening  of  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat.  We  shall  not  dwell 
on  the  false  punctuation  orip]!,  instead  of  DHDJi.,  which  is  found  in 
several  manuscripts,  and  from  which  the  translation  of  the  Chaldee, 
et  obturahitur,  and  that  of  the  Seventy,  and  of  Symm.,  nul  f^cpQax' 
S^i^asToti.  tpuQay'i  ogswv  ^ov,  originated.  It  gives  no  intelligible  sense, 
and  affords  no  explanation  of  the  following  '3.  —  "  Fui-  the  mountain 
valley  will  reach  to  Azal."  bi'X  is  here  taken  by  the  older  interpre- 
ters as  a  proper  name,  with  the  exception  of  Symmachus  and  Jer- 
ome, who  render  it  by  prozinms.  Cyril  remarks:  Km^tj  di  uvir]  ngog 
f'axoiTialg,  ag  loyog  tov  oqovq  x£iij,svj].  Nearly  all  interpreters,  how- 
ever, who  understand  b:^X  also  as  a  proper  name,  have  seen  that  it 
must  not  here  be  taken  as  a  naked  geographical  designation,  but 
with  reference  to  its  appellative  import,  as  is  manifest  from  the  whole 
nature  of  the  description.  In  the  determination  of  this  meaning, 
however,  they  differ  widely  from  each  other.  This  would  not  be  the 
case,  if  the  passage  Mic.  1:11  had  been  more  attentively  consid- 
ered. In  a  description,  where  several  proper  names  are  placed,  with 
constant  allusion  to  their  appellative  meaning,  the  prophet,  while  de- 
scribing how  the  divine  judgment  constantly  advances  from  city  to 
city,  until  it  has  reached  Jerusalem,  says  :  "  The  lamentation  of 
Beth  Haezel  will  deprive  you  of  its  standing  still  (will  not  continue 
to  you  the  ceasing  of  the  lamentation,  as  might  be  expected  from  the 
etymology  of  the  naQie  of  the  city).  For  also  (the  more  distant) 
Marotli  shall  experience  pain.  For  evil  comes  down  from  the  Lord 
upon  Jerusalem."  According  to  this  passage,  Beth  Haezel  must  be 
a  city  not  far  from  Jerusalem,  and  signify  the  house  of  standing  still, 
a  meaning  easily  derived  from  the  usual  one  of  the  verb  S^N,  to  lay 
by  the  side,  while  that  assumi:d  by  Gesenius,  Thes.  s.  v.  no,  domus 
radicis  jirmcB,  has  nothing  iji  its  favor  in  the  Hebrew  idiom,  since 
even  Vi*N,  nobilis,  is  not  to  be  explained  with  him,  radicatus,  but,  as  a 
comparison  of  the  proper  name  Azaliah  shows,  by  sepositus.  If  now 
we  look  at  the  form  of  the  proper  name  in  the  passage,  it  is  evident 
that  Sifi$,  in  pausa  S^X,  can  signify  only  standing  still,  ceasing;  comp. 
Ewald,  p.  231.  The  valley  therefore  shall  reach  to  a  place,  which 
actually  affords  to  the  fugitives,  what  its  name  promises,  the  cessa- 
tion of  the  danger,  because  when  they  have  attained  it,  they  are 


264  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

beyond  the  reach  of  the  divine  judgments.  Whether  this  place  is 
the  same  as  that  mentioned  by  Micah,  can  neither  be  denied,  since 
the  Beth  in  proper  names  is  frequently  omitted  (comp.  Gesenius, 
Thes.  p.  193,)  and  similar  variations  in  their  form,  as  Ezel  and 
Azal,  elsewhere  often  occur  ;  nor  with  certainty  affirmed,  because 
the  situation  of  the  place  in  both  passages  is  left  indefinite,  only  that, 
according  to  Zechariah,  it  must  have  been  eastward  of  Jerusalem 
beyond  the  Mount  of  Olives.  —  ''And  ye  flee,"  viz.,  from  fear  of  being 
swallowed  up  with  the  enemies  of  God  by  the  earth,  which  opens 
during  the  earthquake  ;  comp.  Num.  16  :  34:  "And  all  Israel  round 
about  them  fled,  for  they  said,  lest  the  earth  swallow  us  up."  —  The 
earthquake  in  the  time  of  King  Uzziah  is  not  mentioned  in  the  his- 
torical books,  but  only  Amos  1  :  1.  The  way  in  which  he  speaks  of 
it,  in  the  days,  as  well  as  the  subjoined,  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  to 
prevent  any  one  from  regarding  Uzziah  as  a  king  of  Israel,  shows 
that  the  prophet  lived  at  a  time  far  distant  from  the  event  compared. 
True,  Hitzig  supposes,  1.  c,  that  all  can  be  fully  explained  from  the 
diffuse  style  of  the  writer,  but  he  has  not  been  able  to  bring  forward 
a  single  example  in  point.  —  "  And  there  comes  the  Lord  my  God, 
all  holy  ones  toith  thee."  The  prophet  here  speaks  of  another  com- 
ing of  the  Lord,  than  that  described  in  v.  3,  for  the  judgment  of  his 
enemies.  After  the  Lord  has  delivered  his  people,  he  comes  in 
order  to  dwell  with  them  on  the  glorified  earth.  The  prophet  is  so 
ravished  with  this  delightful  prospect,  that  for  a  time  he  entirely 
loses  sight  of  the  enemies,  and  afterwards  resumes  his  description  of 
their  punishment.  My  God  is  explained  by  the  circumstance  that 
the  prophet,  while  he  sees  the  Lord  draw  near  in  the  most  glorious 
manifestation  of  his  grace,  is  seized  with  lively  joy,  because  this  God 
is  his  God.  The  suf.  in  ^^;^  is  not,  with  several  Jewish  interpre- 
ters and  Drusius,  to  be  referred  to  Jerusalem,  for  this  simple  reason, 
besides  several  others,  because  then  it  would  be  fern.,  but  to  the 
Lord,  to  whom  the  prophet,  beholding  him  in  inward  vision  as 
already  present,  no  longer  satisfied  to  speak  of  him  in  the  third  per- 
son, directs  his  address  with  triumphant  emotions  and  exulting  rap- 
ture, that  the  long  Absent  and  Desired  has  at  length  arrived.  —  By 
D'tj/np.  many  interpreters  understand  the  angels  ;  others,  as  Mark, 
the  saints,  the  church  of  God  on  earth  ;  others,  as  Vitringa  on  Apoc. 
15  :  3,  both,  sancti  tarn  angeli,  quam  homines.  The  decision  is  diffi- 
cult; the  first  interpretation  is  favored  by,  "He  comes  with  ten 
thousand  of  saints,"  the  angels,  Deut.  33  : 2,  and  still  more  by,  "  All 


ZECHAEIAH  Chap  14.  265 

liis  saints  are  in  thy  hand,"  (v.  3,)  "  they  stand  prepared  for  thy  ser- 
vice, serve  thy  prosperity,  O  Israel  ;"  and  also  Matt.  25:  31  :  orav 
ds  el&ij  6  vlog  rov  (xr&^conov  tv  rjj  do^ij  aviov,  xcet  ndvtig  oi  nyytloi  {xsi 
avtov.  Mark  8  :  38  :  orav  il&ij  iv  t/J  5o|/;  ^ov  nuTgog  amov  /jsxa  rtor 
ayyiXoiv  jojv  ocyiuv.     Apoc.  19  :  14. 

V.  6.  "  And  it  comes  to  pass  in  that  day,  it  icill  be  not  light,  that 
which  is  precious  will  become  meanJ'  The  prophet  here  describes  the 
transition  from  the  deepest  darkness  which  attends  the  judgment 
upon  the  enemies  of  the  divine  kingdom  and  the  birth  of  the  new 
world,  to  the  most  splendid  light,  which  irradiates  the  new-formed 
world  ;  first,  entire  darkness,  in  the  verse  before  us,  then  a  mixture 
of  light  and  darkness,  and  lastly,  pure  light,  v.  7,  analogous  to  the 
first  creation,  where  at  first  darkness  covered  the  chaos,  then,  by  the 
matter  of  light  created  on  the  first  day,  a  twilight  arose,  until,  after 
the  matter  of  light  was  concentrated  in  the  heavenly  bodies  created 
on  the  third  day,  the  brightness  became  perfect.  —  In  the  second 
member  there  is  a  diversity  of  readings.  The  Kethib  is  to  be  pointed 
I'lxap^  as  ihefut.  of  5<3p^;  the  marginal  reading  is  ji'^Spl.  As  to  the 
latter,  it  is  by  most  interpreters  after  the  Seventy,  {nut  i/jv^og  x«2  nd- 
yog,)  explained  by  cold  and  frost ;  "  there  will  be  no  light,  (but  there 
will  be)  cold  and  frost."  They  take  either  r\i"ip';  as  synonymous  with 
nnp^,  frigora,  appealing  to  the  fact,  that  Prov.  17  :  27  has,  for 
nn  ip_i  of  the  text,  the  marginal  reading  nn  '-\r>2.  in  the  same  sense; 
or  they  assert  that  instead  of  ri'i'ip/.  must  be  read  mipj..  But  this 
whole  interpretation  has  every  thing  against  it,  and  it  is  therefore 
extremely  wonderful,  how  it  could  have  gained  the  approbation  of  by 
far  the  greater  part  of  interpreters.  That  a  word  of  such  frequent 
occurrence  as  ip^^  should  here  stand,  for  once,  in  an  entirely  new 
meaning  is  highly  improbable  ;  the  marginal  reading  Prov.  17  :  27, 
as  a  proof,  is  nothing  more  nor  less,  than  a  Jewish  conjecture  a  la 
Houbigant,  as  is  indeed  the  case  with  most  of  the  marginal  readings; 
the  mutation  of  ^^"^^i^.  into  i^'^'^P).  must  be  regarded  as  arbitrary,  so 
long  as  an  entire  impossibility  of  explaining  the  reading  of  the  text 
cannot  be  shown  ;  the  alleged  noun  ]^^^\>  nowhere  occurs,  and,  even 
assuming  its  existence,  the  meaning,  for  which  the  language  has 
other  words,  would  still  not  be  established ;  the  construction,  the 
supplying  of  T\:r\\,  without  the  negation,  is  hard.  But  what  is  of 
chief  importance,  nothing  is  said  o^  cold  znA  frost  in  all  the  parallel 
passages  of  the  prophet.  They  are  by  no  means  suitable  in  this 
description,  in  which  the  discourse  throughout  is  only  of  light  and 

VOL.  II.  34 


266  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14 

darkness  (comp.  v.  7,)  so  that  the  second  member  also,  like  the  first, 
must  contain  a  description  of  darkness.  And  what  external  au- 
thority then  has  this  interpretation,  which  is  liable  to  such  numerous 
difficulties,  in  its  favor  1  As  good  as  none-;  for  as  the  marginal 
reading  very  frequently,  indeed  almost  uniformly,  even  where  at  first 
view  it  commends  itself,  has  arisen  from  mere  conjecture ;  as  the  ob- 
scurity of  the  passage,  as  is  shown  by  the  favor  which  interpreters 
have  given  to  the  marginal  reading,  must  have  been  a  temptation  to 
such  a  conjecture ;  as  the  difference  of  the  gender  between  the  noun 
and  the  verb  in  the  text  seemed  to  be  a  justification  of  it,  how  can 
the  marginal  reading  here  be  entitled  to  any  further  importance,  than 
that  of  a  Jewish  conjecture,  whose  first  origin  is  perhaps  to  be  sought 
in  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  who  endeavoured  to  guess  what  they 
could  not  understand  1  Let  us  now  turn  to  the  different  explanations 
of  the  text.  Ch.  B.  Michaelis  explains,  "  Claritates  cnim,  si  quce  per 
vices  existent,  condensabuntur,  atqiie  in  spissas  mox  tenebras  trans- 
ibunt."  This  interpretation  is  to  be  rejected,  if  it  were  only  on  the 
ground,  that  it  takes  nnp^''.  in  a  sense  entirely  unauthorized.  ip^\ 
never  signifies  any  thing  else  than  precious,  glorious,  never  shining, 
as  has  been  erroneously  inferred  from  Job  31 :  26,  much  less  clari- 
tates. ^^^v^^.,  therefore,  can  signify  nothing  but  costly  things.  Far 
better  grounded  is  the  interpretation  of  the  acute  De  Dieu,  Crit. 
Sacr.  p.  305  :  "  Non  erit  lux  ;  pretiosa  concrescent.  Pretiosa  vocat 
codum,  solem,  lunam,  cceteras  Stellas,  direm,  tcrram,  aquam,  quce 
vere  sunt  pretiosissima  muncli.  Heec  concrescent  in  consvrmnatione 
sectdi,  quum  aroix^la  y.avaovfxtva  Xv&'^aovTai,  et  ovgccvol  nvgovfisvot. 
Xv&'^aovTceh  (2  Pet.  3  :  10,  12  ;)  ilia  soluta  inter  se  coibunt  et  veluti  in 
massam  unam  coalescent.  —  Hinc  sequitur,  lucem  nullam  fore,  quia, 
qu(B  lucem  prcebent,  aliis  erunt  involuta."  This  interpretation  is 
nevertheless  liable  to  the  objection,  that  the  thought  which  it  attri- 
butes to  the  passage  is  foreign  to  the  Old  Testament  parallel  passages, 
which  are  so  important,  particularly  of  Zechariah.  They  speak, 
when  they  either,  like  Zechariah,  describe  the  last  great  judgment, 
or  when,  in  the  description  of  inferior  judgments,  they  borrow  their 
images  from  that,  always  of  the  darkening  of  the  sun,  moon,  and 
stars,  never  of  a  darkness,  which  would  arise  from  the  conversion  of 
all  created  things  into  a  new  chaos.  And  this  thought  is  with  them 
so  uniform,  so  predominant,  that  we  must  have  greatly  wondered,  if 
we  had  not  found  it  here.  Comp.  Joel  2  :  10:  "  Before  him  the  earth 
trembles,  the  heavens  quake,  the  sun  and  the  moon  mourn,  the  stars 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  267 

withdraw  their  splendor."  In  like  manner  4:4,  3  :  4,  "  The  sun 
will  be  changed  into  darkness  and  the  moon  to  blood."  Ezek.  32  : 
7:  "And  I  cover  the  heavens,  and  make  the  stars  to  mourn,  I  will 
conceal  the  sun  with  a  cloud,  and  the  moon  will  not  give  her  light." 
V.  8 :  "  All  the  lights  in  heaven  will  I  cause  to  mourn  for  thee,  and  I 
give  darkness  over  thy  land."  Is.  13  :  10  :  "  For  the  stars  of  heav- 
en and  their  constellations  will  not  give  their  light.  The  sun  is  dark 
in^ts  going  forth,  and  the  moon  causes  its  brightness  not  to  shine." 
Amos  8 :  19.  —  In  accordance  with  these  passages,  we  understand 
by  rinp'.,  precious  things,  as  a  designation  of  the  luminous  bodies  of 
heaven,  and  with  the  more  reason,  since  Job  1.  c.  the  moon  is  de- 
signated as  precious,  as  walking  magnificently,  i|Sn  "ip;,  and  translate, 
"  costly  things  become  vile,  the  heavenly  bodies  will  lose  their  most 
beautiful  ornament,  the  light."  The  ground  meaning  of  the  verb  N3p 
is  that  of  contraction.  Hence  arises,  first,  that  of  coagulation,  sec- 
ondly, that  of  diminution  or  deterioration.     In  the  Arab.  tVi ,  con- 

tracta,  corrugata  fuit  res.  In  the  Talmud  X3p  (comp.  Buxtorf,  c. 
''2i)d4:.),allevare,  leva  reddere,  'i^p^,  Icve,  vile,  vilis  pretii,  in  the  gloss 
of  the  Talmud  explained  by  Sp.  In  the  sense  of  contraction,  dimi- 
nution, the  verb  also  occurs  Exod.  15  :  8.  By  the  explanation,  which 
has  been  given,  the  difficulty  also  of  the  apparent  disagreement  in 
gender  is  removed.  It  is  a  simple  Constructio  ad  sensum,  as  sun, 
moon,  and  stars  are  masculine.  There  is  therefore  no  occasion  to 
appeal  to  the  extremely  few  instances  where,  as  Is.  49  :  11,  an  enal- 
lage  of  gender  occurs,  for  which  no  reason  can  be  given. 

V,  7.  ^^  And  it  loill  be  :  one  day,  it  will  be  known  to  the  Lord,  neither 
day,  nor  night,  and  at  the  time  of  even  it  will  become  light."  That 
the  first  words  must  be  thus  construed,  appears  from  the  way  in 
which  n^ni  is  used  in  the  first  and  second  member,  and  in  general 
throughout  this  whole  prophecy  ;  so  that  we  cannot  with  most  inter- 
preters translate  precisely,  erit  dies  unus,  but  must  rather  supply 
n;n''  after  Dr  or,  more  correctly,  deduce  it  from  n^^ni.  irjN  one,  here 
according  to  most  interpreters,  signifies  singular,  excellent.  So  Ch. 
B.  Michaelis;  "  Prorsus  singularis,  et  qui  parem  vix  habiturus  est, 
idque  rationc  ingruentis  turn  caliginis  et  calamitatis,  turn  lucis  et 
auxilii  divini."  But  this  meaning  is  here  as  little  suitable,  as  it  is 
in  general  proved  to  be.  It  is  found  indeed  in  the  Arabic,  but  not 
in  the  Hebrew  idiom,  for  the  only  passage,  which  is  here  cited  in 
favor  of  it,  Ezek.  7  :  5,  is  to  be  translated,  "  Behold  a  wicked  evil 


268  2ECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

comes."  The  correct  view  was  seen  by  Cocceius  ;  "  Unus  dies, 
tempus  non  longum.""  As  a  designation  of  the  comparatively  short- 
est portion  of  time,  we  meet  with  one  day  already,  chap.  3,  9 ;  and, 
as  a  designation  of  a  comparatively  short  period,  one  month,  chap. 
11 :  8.  The  times,  in  relation  to  which  that  of  the  mingling  of 
darkness  and  light  is  designated  as  very  short,  are  those  of  the  per- 
fect darkness  and  perfect  light.  The  phrase  "  it  will  be  known," 
or  "  it  is  known,"  does  not  relate  like  similar  expressions,  Matt.  24 : 
86,  Mark  13 :  32,  only  to  the  time  of  the  appearing  of  this  day,  but 
rather  chiefly  to  its  nature.  Correctly  Burk  ;  "  Solus  dominus  plene^ 
planeque  sciet,  qua  ejus  did  sit  ratio."  The  phrase  "  not  day  and 
not  night,"  Mark  explains  better  than  he  is  aware  of,  since  he  hesi- 
tates between  this  and  several  other  untenable  interpretations  ;  "  t/if 
ob  mixturom  quandam  lucis  diei  ct  tencbruruin  noctis,  nee  illius,  ncc 
hujus  noinen  conveniat  isti  temjjori,  scd  sit  instar  diluculi  aut  crepus- 
culi  cujusdam.'"  The  phrase,  "  in  the  evening  it  will  become  light," 
is  explained  by  the  antithesis  Amos  8:9:  "  And  in  that  day,  saitli 
the  Lord,  I  cause  the  sun  to  go  down  at  mid-day,  and  bring  dark- 
ness over  the  earth  in  the  day  of  light."  As  it  becomes  dark  there, 
where  the  clearest  light  was  possessed  and  expected,  so  it  here  be- 
comes light  at  the  time  when  only  darkness  is  expected,  where  a  day 
of  mixed  darkness  and  light  comes  to  an  end,  and  now,  accordmg  to 
the  natural  course  of  things,  the  entirely  dark  night  appears  to  suc- 
ceed. 

V.  8.  "  And  it  happens  in  that  day,  living  tvatcrs  will  go  forth  from 
Jerusalem,  their  half  to  the  east  sea,  and  their  half  to  the  west  sea,  in 
the  summer  and  in  the  pointer  will  it  be."  The  east  and  west  sea,  the 
Dead  and  the  Mediterranean,  stand  here  only  as  the  termini  ad  quern 
of  the  course  of  the  living  waters,  otherwise  than  in  Ezekiel  chap. 
47,  where  the  sea  is  improved  by  these  waters.  By  the  choice  of 
this  terminus,  the  prophet  indicates  that  the  water  v.ould  pass  through 
the  whole  promised  land,  which  was  bounded  on  the  east  by  the 
Dead,  and  on  the  west  by  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  To  what  pur- 
pose, is  shown  by  the  parallel  passage  Joel  4:  18;  "And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  at  that  time  that  the  mountains  will  drop  with  must, 
and  the  hills  will  flow  with  milk,  and  all  the  brooks  of  Judah  will 
flow  with  water,  and  a  fountain  goes  forth  from  the  house  of  the 
Lord  and  waters  the  valley  of  Shittim."  However  the  valley  of 
Shittim  may  be  defined,  so  much  is  certain,  that  it  is  a  dry,  unfruitful 
place,  the  destination  of  the  water,  therefore,  to  render  fruitful  the 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  259 

land,  sterile  for  want  of  water,  and  at  the  same  time  always  to  supply 
the  thirsty  with  a  refreshing  drink,  as  is  also  announced  in  the  fore- 
going prediction  of  abundance  instead  of  want,  and  fruitfulness  in- 
stead of  sterility,  is  confirmed.  If  now  we  inquire  after  the  sense  of 
this  representation,  no  one  surely  will  agree  with  the  explanation  of 
Grotius,  "  aqucB  ductus  fient  cgregii,  lit  in  alta  pace,"  which  is  en- 
tirely characteristic  of  the  exegetical  manner  of  its  author,  which 
nevertheless  is  not  surpassed  by  other  strange  things,  which  he  brings 
forward  Hpon  the  chapter,  when,  e.  g.,  he  understands  by  him  who  ap- 
pears on  the  Mount  of  Olives  the  son  of  Bacchus,  who  from  there 
orders  the  siege,  and  concerning  the  cleaving  of  the  mountain  re- 
marks, "  Multa  humus  cgerctur,  ita  ut  Met  mons  in  magna  sui parte," 
&c.  If  then  the  representation  is  figurative,  the  question  arises. 
What  does  the  figure  import?  Here,  however,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
The  water,  as  well  that  which  descends  from  the  clouds,  as  that  of 
fountains,  brooks,  and  streams,  where  the  comparison  is  not  ex- 
pressly limited  to  something  special,  is  always  an  image  of  the  divine 
blessings  in  their  whole  compass,  and  in  all  their  fulness,  which 
quicken  the  dry  and  thirsty  waste  of  man's  necessity.  This  will  be 
evident  from  a  citation  of  several  of  the  principal  passages ;  the  de- 
parture of  God,  the  withdrawal  of  his  favors  and  blessings,  appear  as 
a  destitution  of  water,  e.  g.  Is.  41  :  17  :  "  The  suffering  and  poor 
seek  for  water,  and  it  is  not  there,  their  tongue  faileth  for  thirst;  I, 
the  Lord,  will  hear  them  ;  I,  the  God  of  Israel,  will  not  forsake  them." 
Still  more  to  the  purpose  are  such  passages  as  Is.  44:3:  "I  will 
pour  water  upon  that  which  is  thirsty,  and  streams  upon  that  which 
is  dry  ;  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon 
thine  offspring."  "  My  blessing"  is  here  the  whoJe  of  the  substance 
of  the  figure  ;  "  my  Spirit"  is  a  part  of  the  same,  and  we  must  not, 
in  order  to  make  both  expressions  entirely  synonymous,  either  with 
some  interpreters  attribute  a  false  meaning  to  nn,  or  with  others, 
limit  na'i?,  41  :  18;  "I  open  upon  the  hills  streams,  in  the  valleys 
fountains,  and  make  the  desert  pools  of  water,  and  the  dry  land  springs 
of  water.  I  will  give  in  the  wilderness  cedars,"  «Sz,c.  30  :  25  ;  "And 
there  shall  be  upon  every  high  mountain,  and  upon  every  high  hill, 
streams  of  water  in  the  day  of  the  great  battle,  when  the  towers  fall." 
Ezek.  34:26;  "I  give  them  and  the  environs  of  my  hill  for  a 
blessing,  and  cause  the  rain  to  come  down  in  its  time,"  comp.  yet 
Is.  43:  20,  44 :  8,  48  :  21,  49  :  10,  58  :  11.  It  may  be  still  further 
asked,  why  the  prophet  causes  the  water,  the  image  of  the  divine 


270  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

blessings,  to  go  forth  from  Jerusalem.  The  answer  is,  that,  under 
the  image  of  the  central  point  of  the  militant  church  under  the  Old 
Testament,  of  the  place  which  the  Lord  glorified  by  his  typical  presence 
in  the  temple,  is  here  exhibited  to  the  prophet  the  central  point  of  the 
triumphant  church,  the  place  where  the  Lord,  when  he  comes  with  his 
saints,  establishes  his  residence;  comp.  v.  6,  2 :  15 ;  his  rest,  Is.  11  : 
10.  From  Jerusalem,  therefore,  go  forth  the  waters,  in  so  far  as 
here  is  the  seat  of  the  Lord,  the  place  from  which  he  imparts  his 
gracious  favors  to  his  subjects.  This  appears  still  clearer  from  the 
comparison  of  the  parallel  passages.  According  to  Joel  and  Ezekiel, 
the  water  goes  forth  from  the  temple ;  according  to  Apoc.  22  :  1, 
from  the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb.  —  If  now  Jerusalem  stands 
here  as  a  designation  of  its  antitype,  so  must  accordingly  the  whole 
compass  of  the  Jewish  land,  over  which  the  fountain  pours  itself,  sig- 
nify that  which  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  glorified  Jerusalem,  as 
this  bears  to  the  typical,  i.  e.  the  whole  compass  of  the  glorified  king- 
dom of  God,  which  indeed,  according  to  v.  9,  and  the  constant 
predictions  of  all  other  prophets,  is  to  be  extended  over  the  whole 
earth.  The  whole  earth  therefore  shall  be  watered  with  the  stream 
of  the  divine  blessings,  Ps.  36  :  6.  —  The  last  words,  "  in  summer  and 
in  winter  it  will  be,"  signify  the  permanency  of  the  divine  blessings, 
in  contrast,  partly  with  the  frailty  of  all  human  enjoyments,  partly 
with  the  frequent  interruptions  of  these  divine  gifts  themselves,  dur- 
ing the  time  of  the  militant  church,  when  the  Lord  must  often  con- 
ceal his  face  in  order  to  cleanse  the  church,  in  which  were  mingled 
the  holy  and  profane,  by  purifying  judgments ;  while  now,  when  the 
whole  church  consists  of  the  righteous,  and  there  is  no  more  a  Ca- 
naanite  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  there  will  be  no  more  curse.  Je- 
rome explains,  "  Ut  nee  gelu  constringantur  hyeme,  nee  cestatis 
nimio  fervore  siccentur  ?  "  But  the  comparison  of  the  parallel  pas- 
sages shows,  that  the 'prophet  here  had  only  the  last  in  view  ;  that  the 
winter  is  named  as  the  time,  when  even  other  brooks  give  forth 
abundance  of  water.  (Job  6:  16 — 18,)  compares  his  friends  with 
brooks,  which  are  swollen  in  the  winter,  and  have  an  abundance  of 
water,  but  in  summer,  when  their  water  is  most  needed,  dry  up,  and 
therefore  painfully  deceive  the  hope  of  the  traveller.  Isaiah  (58  :  11) 
represents  the  divine  mercy,  and  those  who  were  its  objects,  under 
the  image  of  a  fountain  whose  waters  do  not  lie. 

V.  9. ,  "  And  the  Lord  xvill  he  king  over  the  whole  land ;  in  that  day 
the  Lord  loill  he  only  one  and  his  name  only  one."    \'^^'^~hy'hy_  is 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  271 

very  generally  translated  "  over  the  whole  earth."  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  this  interpretation  is  substantially  correct,  that  here  the 
discourse  is  concerning  an  extension  of  the  dominion  of  the  Lord 
over  all  nations  of  the  earth  in  contrast  with  its  former  limitation  to 
a  single  people;  comp.  chap.  9 :  9,  10.  Ps.  72:8 — 11.  Ps.  2. 
Dan.  2  :  35,  &c.  We  must  however  with  Ruckert  prefer  the  trans- 
lation "  over  the  whole  land."  For,  v.  8,  the  new  kingdom  of  God  had 
represented  itself  to  the  prophet  under  the  image  of  the  former  ;  v. 
10,  we  find  the  same  mode  of  representation,  and  it  is  certainly  un- 
natural to  assume,  that  l"ixn~'7D  stands  here  in  a  sense  different  from 
there,  so  immediately  after.  Mark  correctly  observes  :  "  Non  ogitur 
heic  de  regno  naturm  et  providenticc  communis ;  —  sed  de  regno  spe- 
ciuli  gratia;,  —  quale  hahuit  deus  olim  in  Israel."  The  Lord  is  the 
natural  king  of  the  whole  human  race  ;  but  this  relation  was  dis- 
turbed by  the  fall ;  this  was  the  commencement  of  a  series  of  re- 
bellious efforts,  which  terminated  in  nearly  all  his  subjects  with- 
drawing their  allegiance  from  him,  and  choosing  for  themselves 
other  lords  and  kings  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  according  to  their 
hearts'  desire.  The  Lord,  for  whom  it  would  have  been  easy  to  de- 
stroy his  unfaithful  subjects  by  a  word  of  his  omnipotence,  willed,  in 
accordance  with  his  love,  instead  of  this,  their  voluntary  return  to 
obedience.  Because  the  whole  mass  was  not  yet  prepared,  he  com- 
menced by  restoring  the  natural  relation  among  one  particular  peo- 
ple. With  the  first  appearing  of  Christ  commenced  the  extension  of 
the  plan  to  which  the  special  Theocracy  had  served  only  as  the 
means  ;  its  completion  will  be  introduced  with  his  return  in  glory, 
when  all  opposers  will  either  by  his  mercy  be  converted  from  his 
enemies  to  his  servants,  or  be  destroyed  by  his  punishment  from  his 
kingdom,  which  will  then  embrace  the  whole  earth.  Especially  re- 
markable in  this  connexion  is  Ps.  22  :  28,  29  ;  "  All  the  ends  of  the 
earth  shall  remember  and  turn  to  the  Lord  ;  all  nations  of  the  heathen 
shall  fall  down  before  thee.  For  to  the  Lord  is  the  dominion,  he 
ruleth  among  the  heathen."  That  all  the  heathen  will  hereafter  be 
subject  to  the  Lord  is  grounded  on  the  fact,  that  he  is  their  rightful 
and  natural  king-and  their  present  relation  to  him,  an  unnatural  one, 
which  therefore  cannot  be  lasting.  "  The  Lord  will  be  one,  and  his 
name  one,"  is  well  explained  by  a  Lapide  :  "Jam  in  orbe  multi  ha- 
bentur  et  nominantur  dii,  —  sed  tempore  illo  unus  ah  omnibus  gcntibvs 
coletur  et  tiominabitur  deus."  "  The  Lord  will  be  only  one,"  is  il- 
lustrated by  the  Arabic,  where  idolaters  bear  the  standing  name 


272  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

^jA.3  ^MM.3| ,  qui  deo  socios  addunt.  "  His  name,"  &c.  has  been 
variously  misunderstood.  It  is  explained  by  the  circumstance,  that 
all  names  of  idols,  because  though  these  D'S'S^  are  nonentities,  yet 
as  the  heathen  choose  to  designate  God  by  them,  may  be  considered 
in  a  certain  sense  as  different  appellations  of  the  true  God.  It  is  en- 
tirely analogous,  when,  in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  the  efforts  of  the 
makers  of  idols  are  constantly  represented  as  attempts  to  represent 
God  by  an  image,  and  on  this  ground  their  folly  is  shown.  It  may 
be  supposed,  that  the  prophet  was  here  led  by  the  events  of  his  time 
to  give  prominence  to  the  fact,  that  at  that  time  the  name  of  the  Lord 
would  be  only  one.  The  edicts  of  the  Persian  kings,  as  contained 
in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  make  it  highly  probable,  that 
the  Persians,  who  are  greatly  addicted  to  religious  amalgamation, 
were  prepared  to  represent  their  God  Ormuzd  and  the  God  of  Israel 
as  one  and  the  same  Deity,  differing  only  in  names  and  modes  of 
revelation,  without  going  any  farther,  because  they  naturally  thought 
that  every  people  must  preserve  their  own  name  of  God,  and  hold 
fast  to  the  mode  of  revelation  vouchsafed  to  them,  which  cannot  in- 
deed be  separated  from  the  name. 

V.  10.  ^'  All  the  land  icill  change,  as  the  plain  from  Gehah  to 
Rimmon,  south  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  she  icill  he  exalted,  and  seat  her- 
self on  her  throne,  from  the  gate  of  Benjamin,  to  the  place  of  the  first 
gate,  unto  the  corner  gate,  and  from  the  tower  of  Hananeel  to  the 
zoine presses  of  the  king."  The  object  in  the  verse  is  twofold.  First, 
the  exaltation  of  Jerusalem,  effected  by  all  the  rest  of  the  land  being 
changed  into  a  plain  ;  then,  her  restoration  to  her  former  greatness, 
after  having  been  destroyed  by  being  taken  by  the  enemy,  v.  2,  still 
more  however  perhaps  by  the  earthquake,  v.  5,  and  the  other  judg- 
ments inflicted  upon  the  enemies  found  in  her We   first  explain 

that  which  relates  to  the  former  object.  The  verb  330  here  to  turn 
one's  self,  to  change  one's  self  ]"\i<rr-hD,  not  indeed,  as  Michaelis,  "  the 
whole  region  round  about  Jerusalem,"  but  "the  whole  land."  This 
appears  from  precisely  the  only  thing  which  could  establish  this  lim- 
itation, the  phrase  from  Geha  to  Rimmon.  For  these  are  the  two 
extreme  boundaries  of  the  land  of  Judea  on  the  south  and  the  north, 
by  which  the  prophet  here  designates  its  whole  compass,  in  like  man- 
ner as  in  V.  8,  by  its  east  and  west  boundaries.  Rimmon,  here  de- 
signated as  south  of  Jerusalem,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  rock  Rim- 
mon, lay  in  the  extreme  south  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and,  like  Beer- 
sheba,  was  a  city  of  the  Simeonites  on  the  borders  of  Idumea  ;  comp. 


;^ECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  273 

Josh.  15  :  21,  32.  That  Gebah  lay  on  the  north  border,  appears  from 
the  fact  that,  2  Kings  23 :  8,  the  whole  extent  of  the  kingdom  of  Ju- 
dah  is  designated  by  the  expression,  "  from  Gebah  to  Beersheba," 
comp.  Reland,  II.  p.  801,  973,  Bachiene,  II.  §369,  257.  T\y}VD  stands 
instead  of  a  whole  proposition,  "  as  the  plain  is,  or,  is  conditioned." 
Just  as  D,  chap.  2  :  10  :  "I  spread  you  out  r\inn  J'^IND,  as  are  the 
four  winds,  So  that  your  dwelling-place  corresponds  with  them." 
The  interpreters  uniformly  take  n^n^n  as  an  appellative,  a  plain, 
without  considering  that  we  have  then  no  appropriate  sense,  as  the 
land  to  be  changed  into  the  plain,  cannot  be  compared  with  a  plain, 
and  that  the  article,  which  points  to  a  definite  plain,  is  opposed  to 
this  interpretation,  na^it,  with  the  article,  always  signifies  the  greatest 
and  principal  of  all  the  plains  of  Judea,  thai  of  the  Jordan,  "  the  low 
land  between  the  mountain  ranges,  which  encompass  the  Jordan  on 
the  east  and  west  side,"  in  Josephus,  (.liya  nsdlov,  comp.  Reland,  I. 
p.  359  sq. ;  Bachiene,  I.  §  154  sq. ;  Ritter,  II.  p.  321.  —  The  sense 
therefore  is,  "  All  mountains  in  Judea,  those  of  Jerusalem  excepted, 
shall  be  changed  into  plains,  so  that  the  whole  land  is  like  the  great 
flat,  which  hitherto  constituted  only  one  portion  of  it."  The  design 
of  the  change  is  intimated  by,  "  and  Jerusalem  will  be  exalted." 
The  whole  land  will  be  depressed,  in  order  that  Jerusalem  alone  may 
appear  elevated.  We  now  investigate  the  import  of  this  symbolical 
representation.  Jerusalem  here  again  designates,  as  in  v.  8,  the  cen- 
tral point  of  the  glorified  kingdom  of  God,  Judea,  this  kingdom  in 
its  whole  compass,  in  its  extension  over  the  whole  earth.  How 
then  could  the  sense  well  be  otherwise,  than  that  "  the  Lord  alone 
will  be  exalted  in  that  day,  his  rest  glorious,  (Is.  11  :  10),  his  domin- 
ion, as  that  of  the  king  of  the  whole  earth,  will  destroy  all  earthly 
and  apparent  greatness,  which  rises  up  in  opposition."  By  a  some- 
what different  image,  thereby  showing  that  the  crude  literal  under- 
standing found  in  Jewish  interpreters  is  entirely  untenable,  the  same 
thought  is  expressed  in  Is.  2  :  2,  Mic.  4:1,  Ezek.  40  :  2.  The  tem- 
ple mountain  will  be  placed  on  the  summit  of  all  the  mountains  of 
the  earth.  A  third  image  is  found  in  Dan.  2  :  35.  The  stone,  the 
symbol  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  smites  the  colossus  which  repre- 
sents the  kingdoms  of  the  world  in  contrast  with  that  of  God,  and 
becomes  a  mountain,  which  fills  the  whole  earth.  —  We  now  proceed 
to  explain  what  concerns  the  second  object,  the  rebuilding  of  the  city. 
Concerning  rr-nnn  \i2Vl\  see  on  chap.  12 :  6.  The  S  in  ij^iJ'a'?, 
is  to  be  joined  with  the  verb  3!i'\  The  verb  :dK?;  is  not  seldom  con- 
voL.  II.  35 


274  ZKCHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

strued  with  S,  when  it  imports  not  to  dwell,  or  to  sit,  but  to  seat  one's 
self;  comp.  e.  g,  Ps.  9  :  5.  We  cannot  therefore  interpret  "  she  sits," 
as  all  interpreters  do,  but  "  she  scats  herself  on  her  throne,  in  the  place 
of  the  gate  of  Benjamin,"  &c.  The  whole  compass  of  the  city  is  the 
seat  or  throne,  which  she  takes  possession  of  Here  she  seats  her- 
self on  her  throne,  v.  11,  where  na';  with  3.  is  construed  "she  sits" 
thereon.  The  point,  from  which  this  determination  of  the  bounda- 
ries proceeds,  is  the  gate  of  Benjamin.  This  gate  is  no  doubt  the 
same,  which  is  elsewhere  called  "  the  gate  of  Ephraim."  The  way  to 
the  land  of  Benjamin  was  by  the  gate  of  Benjamin,  conip.  Jer.  37  : 
12,  13.  It  lay  therefore  northward.  The  gate  of  Ephraim  is  de- 
signated 2  Sam.  13  :  23,  as  directed  towards  Ephraim,  i^'^iSN  U]? ; 
the  way  towards  Ephraim  however  passed  through  Benjamin,  comp. 
Faber,  Archdol.  p.  334.  The  first  terminus  ad  quern  is  the  place  of 
the  first  gate.  This  gate  does  not  occur  besides  under  the  same 
name,  it  is  however  no  doubt  the  same,  which  elsewhere  bears  the 
name  nJK'^n  "i^'K^.  This  appears  first  from  the  name,  njw^n  ~\\n2J_ 
means  "  the  gate  of  the  old,"  not  precisely  "  the  old  gate."  After  Gous- 
set,  Hitzig,  1.  c.  p.  53,  supposes  "  gate  of  the  old  "  to  be,  e.  g.  "  gate  of 
the  old  pool,"  which  is  mentioned  Is.  22  :  11.  But  this  opinion  is  en- 
tirely untenable,  because  the  T\)iV':r\  ''\]!p_  lay  in  the  northeast  corner  of 
the  city,  where  the  old  pool,  formed  by  the  waters  of  the  fountain 
Siloa,  could  not  possibly  be  ;  comp,  Vitringa,  and  Ges.  on  Is.  1.  c.  Be- 
sides, the  ellipsis  is  harsh,  and  without  example.  This  difficulty  on  the 
contrary  is  removed,  as  soon  as  with  others  we  explain,  "  gate  of  the 
old  city."  For  as  the  cities  were  personified  as  matrons,  every  addition 
was  properly  unnecessary.  We  often  find,  besides,  also  Jescanah  as 
a  name  of  two  cities  ;  comp.  Reland,  p.  861.  By  the  name  of  the  old 
city,  however,  was  that  part  of  Jerusalem  probably  designated,  which 
already  existed  at  the  time  of  the  Jebusites,  in  contrast  with  the  later 
enlargement  by  David  and  his  successors,  —  in  like  manner  as,  at  a 
later  period,  that  which  was  recently  built  was  called  Bezctha,  xaivij 
noXig  in  Josephus,  in  contrast  with  the  whole  of  the  former  city. 
Faber,  p.  277.  The  name  of  this  gate  entirely  corresponded  with  this. 
ptyxin  "^yp  can  mean  nothing  else  than  "  the  first  gate,"  not,  as  Hitzig 
supposes,  "  the  former,  or,  the  gate  that  was ;  "  for  this  meaning 
would  then  only  be  proper,  when  there  was  an  antithesis  with  a  new 
gate,  psyxi  never  signifies  "  that  which  was,"  without  this  contrast 
with  the  present.  As  now  the  old  city  was  the  first,  so  also  was  its 
gate,  among  all  the  gates  of  the  later  .Jerusalem,  the  first.     In  favor 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  275 

of  this  we  have,  secondly,  its  position ;  just  as  here  the  Jirst  gate  ap- 
pears as  the  first  terminus  ad  quem  from  the  gate  of  Benjamin,  in 
Neh.  12 :  39,  where  the  gates  are  numbered  according  to  their  geo- 
graphical position,  the  old  gate  follows  immediately  after  the  gate  of 
Ephraim.  We  must  not  seek  the  first  gate  west  of  the  gate  of  Ben- 
jamin, but  east.  For,  as  the  terminus  ad  quem  from  the  gate  of  Ben- 
jamin towards  the  west,  the  corner  gate  is  immediately  mentioned  ; 
and  that  we  must  by  no  means  seek  the  first  between  this  and  the 
gate  of  Benjamin  is  evident  from  the  very  small  distance,  four  hun- 
dred cubits,  by  which,  according  to  2  Kings  14  :  23,  both  gates  were 
separated  from  each  other.  Entirely  corresponding  with  this  is  the 
position  of  the  gate  of  the  old  city.  It  was  nearest  to  the  gate  of 
Ephraim  towards  the  east,  probably  at  the  northeast  extremity,  comp. 
Faber,  p.  332.  —  n>'  before  Xl'":i2r\  nj|>^  designates  not  the  terminus  ad 
quem  from  the  first  gate,  but,  as  already  remarked,  a  new  terminus  ad 
quem  from  the  gate  of  Benjamin  westward.  For  that  the  corner  gate 
lay  not  eastward,  but  westward,  appears  from  Jer.  31  :  38,  where, 
by  the  antithesis  of  the  tower  of  Hananeel  lying  on  the  east  side,  and 
of  the  corner  gate,  the  whole  breadth  of  the  city  is  designated.  — 
The  tower  of  Hananeel  lay  on  the  east  side  of  the  city  near  to  the 
sheep  gate,  Neh.  3:1,  12:  37,  39.  From  this  tower,  the  prophet 
begins  a  new  line,  —  for  before  Si^D,  ]n  is  to  be  supplied  out  of  the 
preceding,  —  which  he  continues  to  the  wine-vats  of  the  king,  with- 
out doubt  on  the  south  side  of  the  city,  where,  according  to  Neh.  3  : 
15,  were  the  royal  gardens  ;  comp.  Faber,  p.  335.  Thus  therefore 
we  have  here  a  description  of  the  compass  of  the  city  accordino^  to 
all  the  four  regions  of  heaven.  And  now  a  highly  remarkable  phe- 
nomenon presents  itself,  which  alone  is  sufficient  to  prove  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  second  part.  The  prophet  mentions  only  the  edifices, 
which  had  remained  uninjured  in  the  destruction  by  the  Chaldeans, 
none  which  were  not  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Zechariah  after  the 
destruction,  and  before  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  by  Neheraiah. 
In  the  first  place,  two  gates,  the  gate  of  Benjamin,  and  the  corner 
gate,  serve  as  termini  ;  for  the  third,  the  first  gate  by  the  addition 
unto  the  place,  unto  its  former  site,  is  expressly  designated  as  no 
longer  existing.  One  of  these,  the  corner  gate,  appears  also  in  the 
prophecy  of  Jer.  31  :  38,  composed  after  the  destruction,  as  still 
standing,  (comp.  Bertholdt,  p.  1436.)  Both  were  omitted  in  the  de- 
scription of  the  rebuilding  of  the  gates  by  Nehemiah,  chap.  3,  which, 
especially   when  compared  with  12 :  39,  cannot  be  explained  other- 


276  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

wise,  than  by  supposing  that  it  did  not  need  to  be  rebuilt,  but  only  per- 
haps slightly  repaired.  On  the  contrary,  the  old  gate,  appearing  here 
as  destroyed,  is  mentioned  among  those  which  were  rebuilt.  The  tow- 
er of  Hananeel  appears,  as  well  in  Jer.  1.  c,  as  also  Neh.  3  :  1,  as 
still  standing.  —  The  royal  wine-vats  cannot  easily  be  supposed  to 
have  been  destroyed.  This  was  scarcely  possible,  since,  as  is  still 
the  case  in  the. east  (comp.  Chardin,  in  Harmar,  Th.  III.  p.  J 17.), 
where  the  ground  allows  it,  they  are  hewn  out  of  the  rocks  ;  comp. 
Is.  5  :  2,  Matt.  21  :  33.  Nonni  Diomjsiac.  12,  330.  Such  being  the 
nature  of  the  royal  wine-vats,  it  is  as  probable  as  the  contrary,  that 
they  still  exist  among  the  great  mass  of  the  excavations  in  the  rocks, 
which  are  found  particularly  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  fountain  of 
Siloa;  comp.  Ritter,  II.  p.  419,  421.  For  why  should  they  not  as 
well  be  preserved  as  the  cisterns  and  graves  1  Their  destruction,  prop- 
erly speaking,  was  impossible,  though  they  might  have  been  filled 
up.  We  can  however  abundantly  prove  by  a  special  witness,  that 
they  were  still  in  existence.  They  lay,  as  already  remarked,  without 
doubt  in  the  royal  gardens,  and  these,  appear,  Neh.  3:  15,  to  have 
been  spared  during  the  destruction  by  the  Chaldeans.  —  We  now 
inquire,  what  the  prophet  intends  to  express  by  the  image  of  the  re- 
building of  Jerusalem.  For  that  we  are  not  to  take  him  literally,  is 
evident  from  the  whole  character  of  the  description,  particularly  v. 
8,  9,  where,  under  the  image  of  Judea,  the  whole  earth  presents  it- 
self, and  in  like  manner  the  first  half  of  the  vevse  before  us,  where 
Jerusalem,  in  relation  to  the  rest  of  Judea,  designates  the  central 
point  of  the  future  kingdom  of  God,  in  relation  to  its  circumference, 
which  embraces  the  whole  earth.  The  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  here 
predicted,  stands  in  close  relation  to  its  capture  described  v.  1,2,  and 
the  desolations  occasioned  by  the  divine  judgments  inflicted  upon 
the  enemies  found  in  it.  The  sense,  the  kingdom  of  God  after  the 
Lord  shall  have  removed  all  traces  of  the  calamity,  to  which  it  had 
been  subject,  will  recover  its  ancient  splendor.  This  the  prophet 
expresses,  in  accordance  with  the  representation  of  the  distresses  in- 
flicted upon  the  same,  under  the  image  of  a  capture  of  the  city,  by 
the  image  of  its  restoration  to  its  ancient  limits,  which  are  accord- 
ingly more  accurately  defined  by  a  special  mention  of  the  particular 
bounds. 

V.  11.  "  And  they  dwell  in  her,  and  there  shall  be  no  more  curse, 
and  Jerusalem  sits  securely  on  her  throne."  After  "  they  dwell  there- 
in," there  is  no  occasion,  with  most  interpreters,  to  supply  a  scil.  "se- 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  2^7 

cureiy."  For  then  would  the  last  member  contain  an  empty  tautology. 
Rather,  the  bare  sitting  or  dwelling,  is  here  sufficient,  in  the  antithe- 
sis with,  "  she  seated  herself,"  in  the  preceding  verse ;  and  at  the  same 
time  with  the  going  forth,  partly  as  prisoners,  partly  as  fugitives,  v. 
2,  and  v.  5,  The  expression,  "  there  shall  be  no  more  curse,"  desig- 
nates the  church  of  God  as  consisting,  after  this  catastrophe,  purely 
of  the  righteous  and  holy,  and  therefore  no  longer,  as  in  former  times, 
to  be  purified  by  Theocratical  judgments  ;  comp.  on  v.  21.  In  the 
new  Jerusalem  the  penal  justice  of  God  will  no  more  find  an  object ; 
his  whole  conduct  towards  her  therefore  will  be  an  uninterrupted 
manifestation  of  his  love  and  mercy.  The  same  thought  Jeremiah 
1-  c.  expresses  by  including  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  a  place  desecrated 
by  the  most  frightful  abominations,  within  the  compass  of  the  new 
Jerusalem,  and  then  subjoining,  "  they  shall  no  more  be  destroyed 
for  ever  ;  "  comp.  also  Apoc.  22  :  3. 

V.  12.  "  And  this  joill  be  the  plague  wherewith  the  Lord  will 
plague  all  nations,  which  have  warred  against  Jerusalem  ;  his  flesh 
will  rot  icliile  he  stands  on  his  feet,  and  his  eyes  will  rot  in  their  sock- 
ets and  their  tongue  will  rot  in  their  mouth."  The  prophet,  having 
first  described  the  judgments  upon  the  house  of  God,  contented  him- 
self with  a  mere  intimation  of  the  destruction,  which  the  Lord  would 
bring  upon  its  enemies,  the  instruments,  and  no  less  the  objects,  of  his 
penal  justice,  v.  3  —  5,  and  had  proceeded  directly  to  an  object  most 
attractive  to  his  heart,  to  the  blessings  to  be  conferred  by  the  mercy 
of  God  upon  his  purified  church.  Here  he  interrupts  the  description, 
in  order  more  fully  to  describe  the  punishment  of  the  enemies.  Ac- 
cording to  the  nature  of  the  prophetico-symbolic  representation, 
which  exhibits  every  thing  in  vision,  and  at  the  same  time  with  ref- 
erence to  the  corporeal  judgments  under  the  former  Theocracy,  as 
e.  g.  that  upon  the  Assyrians,  the  punishment  here  appears  exclu- 
sively as  corporeal,  in  like  manner  as  the  crime  also  is  made  an  ob- 
ject of  sense,  by  being  represented  under  the  form  of  a  military  ex- 
pedition against  Jerusalem.  Not  perceiving  this,  Cocceius  and  Mark 
would  transfer  the  spiritual  element  of  the  punishment  into  the  words 
themselves.  They  suppose  that  the  prophet  speaks  of  a  wasting  away 
of  the  body  arising  from  remorse  of  conscience  !  The  correct  view 
is  rather,  that  the  substance  of  the  prophet's  prediction  is  merely  the 
punishment  itself,  that  he  leaves  the  mode  of  this  to  the  fulfilment, 
and  that  what  he  seems  to  say  concerning  it,  belongs  only  to  the 
dress,  instead  of  which  another  could  have  been  chosen,  as  appears 


'278  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

e.  g.  from  a  comparison  of  Is.  66  :  24,  where  the  enemies  of  the 
kino-dom  of  God  appear  under  the  image  of  living  corpses,  which  lie 
as  an  everlastino-  prey  of  the  worms,  and  the  fire  without  the  gate  of 
the  residence  of  the  holy,  i.  e.  of  Jerusalem.  —  On  the  hifin.  pan, 
which  gives  prominence  to  the  action  alone,  in  order  to  direct  atten- 
tion to  its  fearfulness,  comp.  Ewald,  p.  559.  The  Hiph.  shows,  that 
we  are  to  regard  the  agent,  as  the  Lord,  and  therefore  that  for  this 
reason  the  translation  of  Riickert,  with  all  his  effort  to  be  literal, 
"  the  disappearing  of  his  flesh,  because  he  stands  on  his  feet,"  is  not 
coirect.  It  is  liable  to  a  still  stronger  objection.  He  has  been  led 
by  the  Lexicons  and  commentators  on  the  passage,  to  give  to  the 
verb  ppn  the  meaning  to  disappear,  while  the  meaning  to  rot,  to 
moulder,  is  the  only  one  that  can  be  justified  by  the  use  of  the  verb 
itself,  not  merely  Ps.  38 :  6,  where  it  is  necessarily  required,  but  also 
Levit.  26 :  39,  and  in  Ezek.  24  :  23,  33  :  10,  which  rests  upon  this 
passage,  where  it  gives,  as  here,  a  stronger,  and  therefore  in  this  con- 
nexion a  preferable  sense  ;  and  also  by  the  use  of  the  derivative,  p'O, 
rottenness,  mould,  Is.  3  :  24,  5  :  24.  The  expression,  "  and  he  stands 
upon  his  feet,"  magnifies  the  fearfulness  of  the  judgment.  They 
will  be  living  corpses.  If  we  look  at  that  which  is  corporeal  alone, 
such  a  putrefaction  of  a  living  body  is  far  more  terrifying  than  death. 
Cyril,  o  [lEV  yag  y.oivog  oirog  xal  in  xi]g  cpvaecag  &dvuTog  zijxei  fiiv  rug 
ujidvtbiv  adgxag,  x«*  aTtoxugsi  6(p&alfJ.ovg  xul  ykwaaag,  nuvdBcvov  Si  xal 
Tijg  slg  lij^iv  ■^xovaijg  ovfiqjogug  sir]  uv  tlxoTCug  to  ^wvjiov  xul  earwTcov  I'rt 
jaxTJvoiL  fisv  adgxag  xul  anoQQslv  oq&aXjxovg,  xold^sa&ui  8s  xal  ylcaaoag' 
That  besides  the  flesh,  the  eye  and  tongue  are  especially  mentioned, 
is  not,  as  the  comparison  of  chap.  11  :  16  shows,  without  reason. 
The  tongue  is  mentioned,  because  it  insolently  contemned  God  and 
his  people,  (Jerome  :  lingua  magniloqua,  quce  dci  populum  blasphe- 
mabat,  solvetur  in  saniem,  et  intra  vallum  dentium  computrescet,) 
corap.  Ps.  12 :  4,  Is.  chap.  37  ;  the  eye,  because  it  spied  out  the  na- 
kedness of  the  city  of  God  ;  the  whole  body,  because  it  invaded  Jeru- 
salem. 

V.  13.  "  And  it  happens  in  that  day,  great  will  be  the  confusion 
caused  by  the  Lord  among  them,  and  they  seize  each  one  the  hand  of 
his  neighbour,  and  his  hand  raises  itself  up  against  the  hand  of  his 
jieigJibour."  There  is  here  an  allusion  to  the  example  of  panic- 
terror,  sent  by  the  Lord  upon  his  enemies,  and  a  confusion,  which  led 
to  mutual  destruction  in  the  former  history  of  the  people  of  God, 
comp.   Deut.  7:  23,    Judges  7:    14,  1    Sam.  14:  20    ("and  be- 


ZECriAKIAH  Chap.  14  279 

liold  the  sword  of  a  man  was  against  his  neighbour,  a  very  great 
confusion,"  nninp)  ;  principally  however  to  the  history  of  Jehosha- 
phat ;  comp.  particularly  2  Chron.  20  :  23  :  "  And  the  children  of 
Ammon  and  Moab  stood  up  against  the  inhabitants  of  mount  Seir, 
utterly  to  slay  and  destroy  them ;  and  when  they  had  made  an  end 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Seir,  they  helped  to  destroy  one  another." 
Comp.  also  Is.  49  :  26.  Ezek.  38  :  21,  "  The  sword  of  a  man  shall 
be  against  his  brother,"  where  there  is  a  similar  allusion.  y^_  stands 
here  emphatic.  It  is  a  certain  sign  of  the  curse  of  God  when  allies 
rage  against  one  another  ;  comp.  chap.  11  :  14,  Is.  19  :  2.  —  By  the 
seizing  of  the  hand,  we  are  to  understand  a  hostile  assault,  according 
to  the  connexion  and  the  parallel  passages.  Still  more  plainly  is 
hostiltty  implied  in  "  the  hand  raises  itself,"  &c.  Each  one  seeks  to 
master  the  hand  of  his  neighbour  in  order  in  this  way  to  disarm  him, 
and  having  done  this,  he  cuts  at  him,  and  indeed  chiefly  at  his  hand, 
because  whoever  is  deprived  of  it,  can  be  slain  without  danger. 

V.  14.  "  A7id  Judah  also  loill  Jight  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  riches 
of  all  the  heathen  round  about  are  collected,  gold  and  silver  and  gar- 
ments in  great  abundance."  According  to  a  very  ancient  and  widely 
extended  interpretation,  the  first  member  is  translated,  "  And  Judah 
also  will  make  war  with  Jerusalem."  So  the  Chaldee,  "  Qui  sunt  de 
domo  Judah,  gentes  adducent  coactas  pugnare  ;"  Jerome,  "  Sed  et  Ju- 
das piignabit  adversus  Jerusalem ;"  Jarchi,  Cocceius,  Ch.  B.  Michae- 
lis,  Riickert,  and  many  others.  At  least  equally  old,  (the  Seventy,  na- 
^«T«'|fTMt  iv  'ifQovaah'iix,)  is  the  translation,  "  Judah  will  combat  in  Je- 
rusalem." What  is  adduced  in  favor  of  the  former  interpretation  with 
great  plausibility  is,  the  assertion,  that  ?  after  the  verb  on^n,  uni- 
formly indicates  the  abject  of  the  hostility.  But,  on  a  nearer  investi- 
gation, it  appears,  that  5  has  this  meaning  only  when  the  discourse 
is  of  persons ;  that  on  the  contrary,  when  cities  are  spoken  of,  it  al- 
ways and  without  exception  is  used  to  denote  place,  and  accordingly 
can  here  be  grammatically  translated  only,  "  Judah  will  fight  in  Jeru- 
salem." This  difference  between  persons  and  places  is  grounded  in 
the  nature  of  the  case.  ^  after  the  verb  to  Jight,  cannot  mean  pre- 
cisely against,  it  retains  rather  its  original  local  meaning.  Now  a 
host  may  well  fight  in  a  host,  in  so  far  as  both  come  to  blows,  but 
not  the  besieger  in  the  besieged'  city,  until  he  has  captured  it.  Pas- 
sages, in  which  the  local  meaning  of  3  before  the  names  of  places 
after  the  verb  DnSj,  is  entirely  obvious,  and  the  common  under- 
standing of  it  by  against,  plainly  untenable,  are  the  following  ;  Is. 


280  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

30  :  32,  "  And  in  fierce  conflicts  will  he,  the  Lord,  contend  in  her." 
Judges  9 :  45,  T'i'n  00*7; '^S.pOij!  not  "Abimelech  fought  against," 
but  "  in  the  city."  It  is  before  related,  how  he  surprised  the  gate,  by 
which  the  besieged  made  a  sally,  and  then  sent  out  two  divisions  of 
the  host  against  them,  which  were  cut  off  from  the  city,  while  he 
himself  fought  in  the  city.  2  Sam.  11:1;  "  David  sent  Joab  and  all 
Israel  with  him,  and  they  besieged  Rabbah."  {n|l  S;?  nyM.)  Then, 
12:  26;  "  And  then  (after  all  had  taken  place  related  in  chaps.  11, 
12,  after  an  effort  had  been  made  in  vain,  and  with  great  loss,  to 
enter  the  city,)  Joab  fought  in  Rabbah,  and  then  took  he  the  kings' 
city.  And  Joab  sent  messengers  to  David,  and  said  :  I  have  fought 
in  Rabbah  and  taken  the  city  of  waters."  2  Sam.  21 :  19,  "  The 
war  was  again  3U5,  in  Gob;"  comp.  v.  20.  The  only  doubtful  pas- 
sage is  that  1  Sam.  23  :  1,  "  And  they  showed  to  David,  behold,  the 
Philistines  fight  in  Kegilah,  and  plunder  the  threshing-floors."  That 
the  city  itself  was  not  taken,  is  evident  from  what  follows;  yet  we 
are  not  thereby  compelled  to  give  up  the  local  meaning  of  5.  It  is 
only  necessary  to  assume,  that  the  city  here  includes  its  nearest  en- 
virons, in  which  were  the  threshing-floors  ;  comp.  Judges  6  :  37,  2 
Sam.  24  :  16.  If  now  this  argument  is  done  away  and  indeed  proves 
the  opposite,  it  can  no  longer  be  doubted  that  the  explanation,  "  Judah 
will  fight  against  Jerusalem,"  is  to  be  totally  rejected.  Of  a  hostile 
relation  "between  Judah  and  Jerusalem  we  find  no  trace  either  here, 
or  chap.  12,  but  rather  the  opposite.  It  is  however  entirely  decisive, 
that  here  the  fighting  of  Judah  stands  in  manifest  connexion  with 
the  gathering  of  the  booty  in  what  follows.  This  connexion,  how- 
ever, cannot  exist,  unless  the  fighting  is  taken,  not  in  a  hostile,  but 
in  a  friendly  relation,  precisely  as,  2  Chron.  20  :  24,  &c.,  both  Judah 
and  Jerusalem,  as  formerly  in  the  danger,  so  now  also  participate  in 
the  spoil. 

V.  15.  "  And  so  will  be  the  plague  of  the  horses,  the  nudes,  the  cam- 
els, and  the  asses,  which  shall  be  in  those  camps,  as  this  jdague." 
The  verse  contains  an  amplification  of  the  crime  and  the  punish- 
ment. They  have  so  grievously  sinned,  that  their  possessions  also 
have  become  polluted,  and  subject  to  the  divine  malediction.  The 
representation  of  the  prophet  here  proceeds  from  the  same  feeling 
with  the  Mosaic  ordinance  respecting  the  curse  of  God.  When  a 
whqlc  city  had  made  itself  guilty  of  idolatry,  not  only  were  its  inhab- 
itants, but  also  the  cattle,  to  be  slain  ;  so  that  here,  on  a  small  scale, 
the  same  relation  of  the  irrational  part  of  the  creation  to  the  rational 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  281 

is  repeated,  according  to  which,  the  creature,  on  account  of  the  sin 
of  man,  was  made  subject  to  vanity  against  its  will,  comp.  Michaelis, 
Mos.  R.  III.  '^  145.  V.  §  246.  The  case  is  also  analogous,  when,  for 
the  crime  of  Achan,  besides  himself  and  his  children,  his  oxen,  asses, 
and  sheep  also,  were  burnt.  Josh.  7  :  24. 

V.  16.  "  And  it  conies  to  pass,  all  the  remnant  of  all  the  heathen, 
which  come  against  Jerusalem,  shall  go  up  from  year  to  year  to  sup- 
plicate the  King,  Jehovah  of  hosts,  and  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  tab- 
ernacles." —  That  the  journeying  of  the  nations  from  all  the  regions 
of  the  earth  to  Jerusalem,  is  to  be  understood  figuratively,  that  the 
prophet,  as  already,  chap.  8 :  22,  23,  as  Mic.  4:1,  Is.  2 :  3,  employs 
the  method,  in  which  the  fear  of  God,  and  participation  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  manifested  itself  under  the  Old  Testament,  as  a  type  of 
its  manifestation  in  the  Messianic  time,  appears  partly  from  the  nature 
of  the  case  itseif,  ("  qui  enimforct  possibile,  nt  omnes  xinivcrsi  orbis 
incolcc,  Japanenses,  Sinenses,  utriusque  poll  vicim,ctc.  quotannis  Hie- 
rosol.  petercnt  festuni  agitaturi  ?"  Dachs,  Dissert,  ad  Sach.  14,  16. 
adcalc.  cod.  Talmud.  Succnh,  Utrecht,  1726. p.  547.,)  partly  from  the 
nature  of  the  whole  description,  comp.  especially  on  v.  8  —  10.  The 
question  now  arises,  why  the  prophet  selected  from  all  the  festivals, 
precisely  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  That  he  has  not  done  this  with- 
out a  definite  reason,  appears  from  the  impossibility  of  otherwise  con- 
ceiving, why  he  should  not  have  retained  the  festivals  mentioned  in  the 
passage  Is.  66 :  23 ;  with  which  that  before  us  in  all  respects,  even  in 
expression,  accurately  coincides  ;  "  And  it  comes  to  pass  from  new 
moon  to  new  moon,  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  all  flesh  will  come  to 
pray  before  me,  saith  the  Lord."  Here,  in  order  to  express  the  zeal 
of  the  new  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  the  worship  of  the 
Lord,  those  festivals  are  chosen,  which  return  most  frequently. 
Under  the  Old  Testament  only  one  people  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  the 
three  great  annual  feasts,  now  all  flesh  journey  thither  on  each  Sab- 
bath and  new  moon.  This  parallel  passage  serves  at  the  same  time 
to  place  the  absurdity  of  the  literal  interpretation  in  a  stronger  light. 
In  the  determination  of  the  ground,  which  may  have  induced  the 
prophet  to  choose  precisely  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  the  interpreters 
are  divided.  Theodoret  {fjim^dsiog  yag  tig  anodri^iag  6  ravttjg  xac 
gog,  ^dgovg  vtiuqxojp  y.aigog),  Grotius  {''cum  longius  positi  anniios 
diesfesios  celebrare  non  possint,  ut  Judcei,  certe  semel  anno,  autumni 
tempore  quod  ad  itinera  commodissimum,  venient,"  etc.),  and  others, 
adhere  to  the  least  spiritual  of  all.     Nor  do  those  arrive  at  the  truth, 

VOL.   ir.  36 


282  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14, 

who  suppose,  that  the  feast  of  tabernacles  is  mentioned  only  because 
it  was  regarded  as  especially  holy  by  the  Jews,  which  is  proved  by 
its  being  called  by  Plutarch,  Symp.  I.  IV.  5,  [iiyl(j%7iv  y.al  j^luoxdrriv 
TcuQ  ttVTolg  ioQTi\v,  and  the  Talmud  x«t'  «|.  Jn,  and  because  it  was 
celebrated  with  peculiar  joy.  There  is  no  grourid  in  the  law  for  dis- 
tinguishing the  feast  of  tabernacles,  in  these  two  respects,  above  the 
two  remaining  festivals,  nor  can  it  be  shown  that  this  was  done  in 
the  time  of  the  prophet.  The  correct  view  is  rather  that  of  those, 
who,  as  Dachs,  Ch.  B.  Michaelis,  and  others,  have  attributed  its  se- 
lection to  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  It  was,  ac- 
cording to  Levit.  23:  33,  a  festival  of  thanksgiving  for  the  merciful 
protection  of  the  Lord  in  the  journey  through  the  wilderness,  to  which 
alone  it  was  owing,- that  the  people,  instead  of  being  overcome  by  the 
dangers,  which  threatened  their  destruction,  were  purified  by  them, 
and  attained  to  the  ppssession  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  *  This  wander- 
ing of  the  people  of  Israel  was  however  a  type  (comp.  1  Cor.  10  :  11.), 
not  only  of  the  similar  proceedings  of  God  with  this  people  in  future 
times,  particularly  of  the  Babylonish  and  present  exile,  (comp.  Ezek. 
20:  34;  "I  bring  you  to  the  tcilderness  of  the  nations,  saith  the 
Lord,  and  there  contend  with  you  face  to  face  ;  as  I  have  contended 
with  your  fathers  in  the  wilderness  of  Egypt,  so  will  I  contend  with 
you,  saith  the  Lord.  In  this  wilderness  will  the  Lord  purify  the 
people,  and  cut  off  the  ungodly  members ;  I  expel  from  among  you 
the  sinners  and  the  transgressors  against  me,")  but  also  of  his  con- 
duct towards  those  who  were  destined  at  a  future  day  to  become  his 
people.  This  people  will  then  celebrate  the  feast  of  tabernacles, 
''  Quum  post  cliuturnas  suas  per  horridum  hujus  miindi  desertum  pere- 
grinationes  aditum  ad  hmreditatem,  et  introitum  in  Canaam  plenarie 
sihi  videbit  reclusum  in  fine  dierum ;"  (Dachs  ;)  not  outwardly,  but 
spiritually,  as  the  Sabbath,  Heb.  4  :  9,  and  the  passover,  1  Cor.  5  :  7, 
8.  In  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  as  well  as  in  the  two  remaining  great 
festivals,  the  benefits  of  God  in  nature,  were  celebrated,  together  with 
that  manifested  in  the  history  of  his  people.  It  was  at  the  same  time 
the  thanksgiving  feast  for  the  completion  of  the  harvest  '"l"P!<r!.  Jn. 
Perhaps  the  prophet  had  also  this  design  of  the  festival  in  view,  per- 
haps he  regarded  the  feast  of  tabernacles  at  the  same  time  as  a  feast 
of  gratitude  for  the  rich  gifts  of  grace  imparted  to  the  new  citizens 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.  —  "  All  that  remains,"  Slc,  reminds  us,  of 
the  coincidence  between  the  type  and  the  antitype.  As  not  all  who 
came  up  out  of  Egypt  reached  Canaan,  and  there  celebrated  the  feast 


ZECHARIAH  Cuai'.  14  283 

of  tabernacles,  as,  on  the  contrary,  the  greatest  part  of  them  were  cut 
off  during  the  journey  througli  the  wilderness,  by  the  divine  judg- 
ments ;  so  also  will  not  all  the  heathen,  who  formerly  went  up  against 
Jerusalem,  now  go  thither  in  thankfulness  and  love,  but  only  the 
remnant  whom  the  mercy  of  God  spares  after  the  greater  part,  all 
the  stiffnecked  despisers  of  God,  shall  have  been  destroyed  by  the 
judgments  formerly  described.  —  |P  in  '^J?  is  not  the  terminus  a  quo, 
nor  ^  in  T\W2  the  terminus  ad  quern,  but  njii>5  njt^  signifies : 
a  year  in  a  year,  one  year  as  it  were  inserted  into  another,  as  the 
links  in  a  chain,  and  the  preceding  ""^n,  properly  e%  suffidentia., 
only  serves  to  express  more  strongly  the  regularity  and  constancy  of 
the  action.  Is.,  also,  66  :  23,  is  to  be  explained,  "  Regularly  every  new 
moon,  in  its  new  moon,  (the  one  belonging  to  it,  because  belonging 
to  the  natural  course  of  time  immediately  following  it,)  and  regularly 
every  Sabbath  in  its  Sabbath."  The  assertion  of  several  Jewish  in- 
terpreters is  erroneous,  that  the  circumstance,  that  "j'ijp.  stands  with- 
out the  article,  not  ^.lh_,  but  "^Xil,  indicates,  that  we  must  translate, 
"  to  the  king  of  the  Lord,"  and  that  by  this  king,  not  the  Lord  himself, 
but  the  Messiah  is  to  be  understood.  The  article,  which  occurs  far 
more  rarely  in  poetry  than  in  prose,  comp.  Ewald,  p.  568,  is  here  not 
strictly  required,  because  the  nearer  determination  follows,  in  which 
case  also  we  could  omit  it,  and  entirely  the.sarae  connexion  is  found. 
Is.  6  :  5.  The  Lord  is  here  also  called  king,  not  in  reference  to  his 
general  government  of  the  world,  but  in  the  Theocratic  sense, 
comp.  V.  9. 

V.  17.'  "  And  it  comes  to  pass,  that  ivlioever  of  all  the  families  of 
the  earth  will  not  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  pray  to  the  king,  Jehovah  oj 
liosts,  —  upo7i  them  there  will  be  no  rain.'^  ■  According  to  several  in- 
terpreters, by  raiii,  here,  the  divine  blessings  are  figuratively  desig- 
nated. So  e.  g.  Grotius  :  "  Quod  per  comparationem  diq;itur,  Hos.  6  : 
3.,  id  hie  per  mctaphoram,  qucc  eurtata  comparatio  est,  demonstralur ; 
nam  per  imhrem  intelligitur  divinus  favor,  quia  et  imbtr  vocMri  solet 
tvXoyla"  That  which  has  been  already  said  on  v.  12,  is  applicable 
here  also.  To  take  DK/.4,  when  there  is  no  reason  for  this  in  the 
context,  precisely  as  a  figurative  designation  of  the  divine  blessings, 
is  highly  capricious.  The  correct  view  is,  rather,  that  the  representa- 
lion  of  this  verse  like  the  former  is  throughout  figurative,  that  the 
prophet  represents  spiritual  relations  by  external  objects.  The 
thought  that,  at  that  time,  instead  of  leaving  the  heathen  to  them- 
selves as  at  present,  the  Lord  would  demand  of  them  the  fulfilment 


284  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

of  their  duties  towards  him,  the  prophet  expresses,  by  declaring  that 
all,  who  do  not  join  in  the  journey  to  Jerusalem,  should  be  afflicted 
with  the  want  of  rain  ;  a  punishment  threatened  in  the  law  against  its 
transgressors,  and  frequently  inflicted,  particularly  in  the  case  of 
Ahab.  It  cannot  however  be  inferred  from  this  passage,  that  at  that 
time  there  will  actually  be  such  refractory  persons.  The  passage  is 
rather  entirely  analogous  to  that  of  Is.  65  :  20.  The  supposed  ex- 
istence of  such,  serves  the  prophet  merely  as  a  foundation  for  the 
thought,  which  we  have  already  designated  as  containing  the  sub- 
stance of  the  representation.  The  appellation,  "  the  families  of  the 
earth,"  seems  to  be  intentionally  chosen,  in  order  to  indicate  the 
changed  relation  of  the  heathen  to  the  Lord,  the  Theocratic  relation, 
in  which  they  now  stand  to  him,  as  it  contains  the  basis  of  their  far 
stronger  obligation  henceforth  to  serve  him. 

"V.  18.  "  And  if  the  family  of  Egypt  does  not  go  forth,  and  come 
up,  so  will  there  not  be  rain  upon  them,  hut  there  shall  be  upon  them 
the  plague,  lohereioith  the  Lord  will  plague  all  the  nations,  loho  will 
not  go  forth  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  tabernacles."  The  strange 
supposition,  that  the  prophet  must  here  have  particular  regard  to  the 
natural  condition  of  Egypt,  which  owes  its  fertility,  not  to  the  rain, 
which  there  falls  sparingly,  and  in  Upper  Egypt  not  at  all,  but  to  the 
Nile,  has  led  the  interpreters,  almost  without  exception,  to  very  un- 
natural interpretations.  They  either  connect  Dn'Si?  J^h)!,  as  the 
Seventy  have  done,  with  the  protasis,  and  then  several  of  them  trans- 
late, "  super  quos  non  est  imher,  erit  ilia  plaga,  qua  affectnrus  est 
Jehovah  gentes,"  by  which  plague  they  then  understand  that  of  v.  12, 
but  erroneously,  because  here  indeed  the  discourse  relates  to  the 
punishment  of  those,  who,  after  they  have  escaped  the  divine  judg- 
ments, decline  going  up  as  suppliants  to  Jerusalem,  —  or  they  ex- 
plain, beginning  the  apodosis  with  nS],  "  non  erit  super  ipsos  imher 
ipsorum,  s.  quod  imhris  vicem  ipsis  prcpstat,"  or  they  understand  nS] 
interrogatively  ;  "  et  sifamilia  yEgypti  non  nscenderit  et  non  venerit, 
annon  erit  super  eos  plaga  ?  "  &c.  But  the  prophet,  in  naming  the 
Egyptians  as  an  individual  example  of  one  people,  who  should  be 
visited  with  the  punishment  of  withholding  of  rain,  probably  thought 
but  little,  whether  this  special  punishment,  which  is  here  to  be  re- 
garded only  as  an  outward  exhibition  of  the  punishment  in  general, 
must  have  been  peculiarly  felt  by  this  people  on  account  of  the  natu- 
ral condition  of  their  land.  DH'^i'  ^^"^  in  this  verse  must  necessarily 
be  understood,  as  in  the  preceding,  from  which  therefore  D^.^n  n^n' 


I 


ZECHARIAH  Chai-.  14.  286 

must  be  supplied,  and  by  the  plague,  no  other  than  that  of  the  with- 
Ijolding  of  rain. 

V.  19.  "  This  will  be  the  sin  of  Egypt,  and  the  sin  of  all  the  na- 
tions ivho  will  not  go  up  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  tabernacles."  The 
interpreters  mostly  explain,  "  this  will  be  the  punishment,"  &c.  But 
this  explanation  is  to  be  rejected,  even  for  this  reason,  because 
nxtsn  and  nxisn  never  occur  simply  in  the  sense  punishment  of  sin, 
as  is  evident  from  a  more  accurate  view  of  the  passages  cited  for  this 
idiom,  e.  g.  Gen.  20:  9,  Num.  32:23.  Besides,  according  to  it, 
the  verse  would  be  a  mere  resumption,  contrary  to  the  custom  of 
Zechariah,  and  vvould  contain  no  new  thought.  The  true  interpre- 
tation was  seen  by  Jerome,  ("  Et  hoc  peccatum  maximum  erit  JEgyp- 
tio,  Assyrio,  etc.,  si  noluerint  (gredi  de  terris  suis  et  ascendere  Hie- 
rusfdem^")  and  Cyril.  Formerly,  nations  were  punished,  on  ac- 
count of  other  sins  ;  now,  since  the  Theocratical  dominion  of  the  Lord 
was  extended  over  the  whole  earth,  there  is  only  one  great  sin,  be- 
fore which  the  rest  entirely  disappear ;  only  one  cause  of  the  divine 
judgments,  the  refusal  of  that  reverence  which  they  owe  to  their 
king,  or  its  root,  unbelief.  This  one  sin  is  their  refusal  to  go  up  to 
Jerusalem. 

V.  20.  "iM  this  day  there  will  stand  on  the  bells  of  the  horses,  Holy 
to  the  Lord,  and  there  will  be  pots  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  as  the  sa- 
crificial bowls  before  the  altar."  In  the  translation  of  the  first  mem- 
ber, the  interpreters  agree,  only  that  several  give  to  mhv??,  bells, 
another  meaning,  either  with  the  Seventy,  and  Vulg.,  rein,  or  with 
others,  ornament,  or  armour,  as  Luther  translates.  It  is  also  generally 
acknowledged,  that  the  prophet  alludes  to  the  holy  plate  on  the  diadem 
of  the  high  priest,  whereon,  according  to  Exod.  28  :  26,  was  engraven 
{et  sculpes  rhy)  "  Holy  to  the  Lord,"  (njn^S  ti'l^p.)  While,  under  the 
Old  Testament,  many  things  are  designated  as  "  holy  to  the  Lord," 
this  was  the  only  one  which  bore  the  above  inscription,  and  which  there- 
fore entirely  coincided  with  that  before  us  ;  since  it  is  here  by  no  means 
said,  that  the  bells  of  the  horses  will  be  holy  to  the  Lord,  but  upon 
the  bells  of  the  horses  will  be,  stand  engraven,  "  Holy  to  the  Lord." 
The  passages,  which  prove  that  it  was  an  ancient  custom,  particu- 
larly in  the  east,  to  hang  bells  upon  horses  and  mules,  partly  for  use, 
for  the  same  object  for  which  it  is  done  among  us,  partly  for  orna- 
ment, have  been  most  diligently  collected  by  Dovgtmus,  in  the  Ana- 
lectis  Sacris,  p.  297,  ed.  2.  Thus  it  is  said,  e.  g.  by  Diodorus  Sic. 
1.  18,  ed.  VVessel.  II.  p.  279,  in  the  description  of  Alexander's  fu- 


286  ZECHAKIAH  Cuai>.  14. 

neral  procession  :  ciaxs  xovg  anuvxaq  ijfXLovovg  liviu  k^^xovta  y.al  jiaaa- 
gag '  txaarog  8i  roiirav  eaiecpdivcoTO  xiXQ^ow^kVM  axiffdvia  ntu  nag  hxixrs- 
gav  T(ov  omyovwv  iix^v  i^rjgTt]fj,ivov  xoidava  XQ^oovv.  And  Nicetas 
Choniates  says  of  the  Persians,  they  sat  upon  beautiful  horses,  which 
besides  other  ornaments  xal  negirjgirjfAevovg  i'xovoi  ■tjxsTLxovg  xoiSoivug. 
But,  with  this  unanimity,  there  is  nevertheless  no  little  difference  of 
opinion.  The  Jewish  interpreters  have  wandered  farthest  from  the 
truth,  (the  Jew  questioned  by  Jerome;  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  and  Aben- 
ezra,)  who,  kept  back  from  the  true  interpretation  because  this  in- 
volved an  abolition  of  the  whole  ceremonial  law,  understood  the 
words  of  the  consecration  of  the  bells  to  sacred  uses,  and  of  the 
making  of  holy  vessels  out  of  them,  in  like  manner  as  Grotius,  for 
whom  the  true  sense  was  too  deep.  He  explains  ;  "  Quod  cohcerct 
equi  tintimiahulis  deo  sacrabitur,  cinctus  nempe  equorum,  qui  solebat 
esse  ex  materia  pretiosa  ct  ornatas  gcmmis  :  Jicbc  qui  domum  rcdibunt 
donaturos  teniplo  dicit."  The  untenableness  of  this  explanation  ap- 
pears from  the  circumstance,  that  Grotius,  probably  feeling  that  the 
bells  of  the  horses  were  a  gift  too  insignificant  for  the  Lord,  insensi- 
bly adds  to  them  their  whole  ornament.  It  appears  still  plainer 
from  the  comparison  of  the  second  member,  and  of  v.  21,  where  the 
discourse  is  not,  as  must  be  expected  according  to  this  interpreta- 
tion, of  a  gift  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  but  of  a  removal  of  the  dis- 
tinction between  lioly  and  profane.  And  lastly,  it  is  still  farther  ob- 
jected that,  according  to  this  interpretation,  the  allusion,  which  is 
plainly  of  deep  import,  to  the  plate  on  the  forehead  of  the  high  priest, 
is  converted  into  a  very  ordinary  allusion.  More  plausible  is  another 
interpretation,  which  is  Ibund,  e.  g.,  in  Mark,  "  en  fore  sanctissima  et 
ad  dei  servilulem  ac  gloriam  adkibenda,  iii  quibus  alias  antiquitus 
maxima  regnabat  pi-ofanitas"  especially  after  the  embellishment 
which  has  been  given  to  it  by  Fels,  in  the  Dissertatio  ad  Zach.  14, 
20,  21,  prcBS.  (J.  H.  Hottinger,  Marb.  1711.)  After  having  cited 
several  examples  of  the  custom  of  idolatrous  nations,  to  designate 
persons  and  things  with  the  image  and  name  of  an  idol,  (comp.  3 
Mace.  2:  21.  Acts  28:  11.  Grot,  on  Apoc.  7:3,  13:  16,)  he 
shows  from  passages  of  the  ancients,  which  are  found  still  more  fully 
collected  in  Brissonius  (p.  172,  and  340,  sq.),  and  in  Thysius  (on  Justi- 
nus,  1, 10,  5,)  that  the  horses  among  the  Persians  were  sacred  to  the 
sun,  and  then  conjectured,  relying  especially  on  Curtius,  3.  3,  ac- 
cording to  whom  there  were  images  of  idols  on  the  chariot  of  Jupiter 
(Ormuzd),  ("  utrumquc  ctirrus  latus  deorum  simulacra  ix  auro  argca- 


^  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  287 

toque  expressa  decorahant,")  that  it  was  the  custom  among  the  Per- 
sians, to  write  the  name  of  their  deity  on  the  bells  of  their  horses, 
and  thereby  to  designate  them  as  consecrated  to  him.  He  then  shows 
how  the  cavalry,  at  the  time  of  the  prophet,  was  the  pride  and  the 
strength  of  the  Persians.  The  sense  now,  according  to  him,  is,  "  The 
happy  time  will  hereafter  come,  when  the  idolatrous  nations-will  de- 
vote themselves  and  all  that  they  have  heretofore  consecrated  to  idols, 
to  the  Lord."  But  this  interpretation  also  appears  on  a  nearer  ex- 
amination, as  untenable.  The  second  member,  and  v.  21,  show,  that 
the  discourse  here  is  not  of  any  thing  to  be  devoted  to  the  Lord,  but 
of  something  to  be  protected  by  him.  This  is  also  confirmed  by  the 
reference  to  the  gold  plate  on  the  forehead  of  the  high  priest.  For 
this  was  by  no  means  a  sign  invented  by  man,  whereby  the  high 
priest  consecrated  himself  to  God,  but  it  was  the  symbol  of  the  holi- 
ness, imparted  by  God  out  of  grace  to  the  high  priest,  and  to  him  in- 
deed as  a  representative  of  the  people,  as  plainly  appears  from  Ex. 
28  :  38,  ("And  it  shall  be  upon  the  forehead  of  Aaron,  and  Aaron 
bears  therefore  the  guilt  of  every  holy  thing  which  the  children  of 
Israel  consecrate  ;  and  it  shall  be  upon  his  forehead  continually,  to 
render  them  acceptable  before  the  Lord,")  according  to  which  this 
symbol  implies,  the  holiness  imparted  by  God,  which  is  in  its  own 
nature  perfect,  so  that  the  people  so  long  as  this  relation  continued, 
notwithstanding  the  deficiency  of  their  own  holiness,  which  defiled 
all  their  sacred  actions,  were  yet  regarded  and  treated  as  holy  by  the 
Lord.  The  sense  accordingly  is,  "  With  the  symbol  of  holiness,  which 
formerly  only  the  high  priest  bore,  will  the  Lord  at  that  time  adorn 
the  horses."  .  Herein  a  very  deep  truth  is  contained.  With  the  fall 
of  man  originated  the  distinction  between  holy  and  profane  To  abol- 
ish this,  to  give  sole  dominion  to  that  which  is  holy,  was  the  design 
of  all  the  divine  institutions  ;  while  the  prince  of  this  world  strove,  on 
the  contrary,  entirely  to  abolish  that  which  is  holy.  In  order  the 
more  surely  to  gain  his  final  purpose,  the  Lord  for  a  long  time  suffer- 
ed the  contrast  to  become  greater  and  greater.  He  separated  to 
himself  one  holy  people,  in  comparison  with  which,  all  others  were 
profane  ;  he  gave  to  this  people  a  law  in  which  the  separation  be- 
tween holy  and  profane  extended  from  the  greatest  to  the  least.  He 
contented  himself  for  a  long  time  with  only  one  certain  outwardly 
defined  province,  because  otherwise,  if  both  the  opposing  principles 
had  been  mingled  with  one  another,  the  evil  would  entirely  have 
swallowed  up  the  good.     With  the  first  manifestation  of  Christ  the 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

last  design  of  God  began  to  approach  its  realization ;  the  external 
contrast  between  the  profane  and  the  holy  now  became  less  obvious, 
because,  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  a  far  stronger  support  and  aid  was 
given  to  the  latter.  Both  however  still  continued  to  exist;  even  in 
the  believer  the  good  does  not  attain  in  this  life  to  complete  and  sole 
dominion.  Hereafter,  however,  when  the  Lord  shall  be  all  in  all,  a 
time  will  come  when  every  contrast  of  the  holy  and  the  unholy,  every 
impure  mixture  of  both,  every  distinction  of  degrees  even  in  that 
which  is  holy,  will  cease.  The  case  is  analogous,  when,  according 
to  Jer.  31  :  40,  the  whole  valley  of  corpses  shall  be  nin'S  '^')\>,  and 
brought  within  the  circumference  of  Jerusalem.  As  the  first  mem- 
ber predicts  the  conversion  of  all  that  is  profane  into  that  which  is 
holy,  so  the  second,  the  doing  away  of  the  distinction  of  degrees  be- 
tween the  holy  things  themselves.  To  the  most  holy  vessels,  under 
the  old  covenant,  belong  the  bowls  before  the  altar,  the  basins,  into 
which  the  blood  of  the  victims  was  received  and  then  from  them 
sprinkled  against  the  altar  and  poured  out  at  its  foot.  For  of  all 
vessels,  these  were  most  immediately  used  for  the  most  holy  service 
of  the  Lord.  To  the  utensils  on  the  contrary,  which  were  the  least 
holy,  belonged  the  pots,  those,  viz.  in  which  the  flesh  of  the  victims 
was  cooked.  For  that  these  are  here  spoken  of,  appears  from  v.  21. 
They  were  used  in  the  service  of  man.  The  Jewish  interpreters, 
according  to  their- opinion  of  the  eternal  duration  of  the  ceremonial 
law,  for  the  refutation  of  which  this  passage  alone,  as  well  as  that 
Mai.  1  :  11,  is  sufficient,  must  endeavour  here  also  by  a  forced  ex- 
planation to  set  aside  the  true  sense,  which  is  so  unpleasant  to  them. 
Thus  Kimchi  remarks,  whom  Abarbanel  follows  :  '•  Verba  ezponenda 
sunt  de  (squali  numero  craterum  et  ollarum  ;  ita  vertit  Jonathan  : 
N'plTDD  J\S'JD.  Nam  quemadmodum  plurimi  eruni  in  domo  Adonai 
pro  sanguine  spargendo  crateres,  {quando  permuUi  erunt,  qui  sacriji- 
cahunt ;  etenim  oames,  qui  festum  celebraturi  venient,  sacrijicia  offe- 
rent,)  ita  oUcb  secundum  ojfercntium  numcrum  augebuntur."  Such  is 
the  nature  of  this  interpretation,  that  we  wonder  how  several  Christian 
interpreters  (Vatablus,  Drusius,  Grotius)  could  have  adopted  it. 
That  the  multitude  is  the  tertium  comparationis  is  an  entirely  arbi- 
trary assumption  ;  on  the  contrary,  holiness  is  plainly  enough  desig- 
nated as  such,  by  the  addition  n3nD  'A?'?  at  D'j"?";)?P,  in  like  manner 
as  by  the  connexion  with  the  foregoing,  where  the  subject  of  dis- 
course was  holiness.  Besides,  the  cooking  pots  must  always  have 
been  comparatively  far  more  numerous,  than  the  bowls  before  the 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.  289 

TV' 

altar,  and  we  see  not  how  the  former  could  be  compared  with  the 
latter,  in  order  to  represent  their  number  as  very  great.  Lastly,  in 
the  following  verse  also,  as  well  as  in  the  first  portion  of  this,  the 
discourse  does  not  relate  to  the  increase  of  the  vessels  of  the  temple, 
occasioned  by  the  crowd  of  those  who  presented  sacrifice,  but  to  a 
conversion  of  all  that  is  profane  into  what  is  holy.  Ezekiel,  chap.  43  : 
12,  45:  3,  expresses  by  another  image  the  same  thought,  the  doing 
away  of  all  degrees  of  difference  among  holy  things.  The  whole 
mountain,  upon  which  the  new  temple  stands,  will  be  the  holiest  of 
all,  Dl^''"Ji^.  ^'}\>. 

V,  21.  '■'■And  every  j)ol  in  Jerusalem  and  Jiidah  will  be  holy  to 
the  Lord  of  Hosts,  and  all  the  offerers  come  and  take  therefrom, 
and  offer  therein,  and  there  will  be  no  more  a  Canaanite  in  the  house 
of  the  Lord  of  Hosts  in  that  day."  As  the  pots  in  the  temple  will 
be  all  equally  holy  with  the  sacrificial  bowls,  so  all  pots  in  Jeru.salem 
and  Judah  which  heretofore  were  only  clean,  not  holy,  will  be  equally 
holy,  as  the  pots  in  the  temple.  In  the  last  words,  several  take  '^y.l? 
in  the  sense  tnerchant.  Thus  Jonathan  :  n^::3  mj;  NlJn  nu;,'  'T\'  ^hy 
StJ'npO  "  et  non  crit  amplius  cxcrcens  mercaturam  in  domo  sanctuarii ;" 
so  Aquila  (who,  after  .Terome,  translates  mercator,  s/^nogog),  Aben- 
ezra,  Kimchi,  Abarbanel,  Grotius  ;  by  far  the  majority  of  interpre- 
ters, however,  take  'JW-.,  after  the  Seventy,  as  a  gentile  noun.  And 
this  interpretation,  in  comparison  with  the  context  and  the  parallel  pas- 
sages, is  unconditionally  to  be  preferred.  When  now  the  prophet  says, 
that,  at  that  time,  there  shall  be  no  longer  a  Canaanite  in  the  house  of 
the  Lord,  it  necessarily  follows,  that,  at  his  time,  Canaanites  were 
found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord.  For  this  reason  alone,  Canaanites, 
according  to  corporeal  descent,  cannot  be  intended  ;  since  the  Gibe- 
onites,  whom  several  interpreters  here  mention,  were  not  in  the  tem- 
ple itself,  from  which  all  foreigners  were  kept  at  a  distance  with  the 
greatest  care.  We  have  here  rather  an  instance  of  tiie  idiom,  of 
frequent  occurrence,  whereby  the  ungodly  members  of  the  Theocracy 
themselves,  in  mockery  of  the  arrogance  founded  on  the  outward  par- 
ticipation of  the  same,  are  designated  as  heathen,  or  uncircumcised, 
or  especially  as  Canaanites,  or  some  other  heathen  people.  Circum- 
cision had  the  power  of  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  only  when  the  spiritu- 
al condition,  typified  by  the  outward  action,  actually  existed  ;  where 
this  was  not  the  case,  the  circumcision  was  considered  void.  As 
even  the  Pentateuch  speaks  of  a  circumcision  of  the  heart,  to  which 
outward  circumcision  bound  the  Israelites,  (comp.  Deut.  10  :  16,  30  : 
VOL.   H.  37 


290  ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14. 

6,)  so  Jer.  4:4,  {"  Circumcise  your  heart,  and  take  away  the  foreskin 
of  your  heart,  ye  men  of  Judah,  and  ye  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,") 
and  chap.  9  :  25  ("  for  all  the  heathen  are  uncircumcised,  and  the 
whole  house  of  Israel  are  uncircumcised  in  heart,")  designates  the 
ungodly  Israelites  as  uncircumcised  in  heart.  Ezekiel  goes  a  step 
farther.  He  designates,  chap.  44 :  9,  the  ungodly  priests  and  Le- 
vites,  not  merely  as  uncircumcised  in  heart,  but  also  in  flesh,  and  as 
sons  of  the  stranger.  For  that  here,  by  the  "  uncircumcised,"  and  the 
"  sons  of  the  stranger,"  not  heathen  properly,  as  most  interpreters 
strangely  enough  assume,  but  the  ungodly  Levites  are  designated,  ap- 
pears, am®ng  other  reasons,  from  the  fact,  that  priestly  actions,  viz.  the 
presenting  of  sacrifices,  are  attributed  to  these  persons  (comp.  v.  7 
with  V.  15);  farther  from  the  DX  O  in  v.  10,  which,  by  these  interpreters 
(comp.  e.  g.  B.  Rosenm.)  is  unphilologically  translated,  yea  also,  or 
moreove?-,  instead  ot  bi/t ;  and  lastly,  from  v.  15  and  16,  where,  to  the 
threatening  against  the  ungodly  priests  and  Levites,  contained  in  v. 
7 —  14,  the  prediction  of  a  reward  for  the  pious  is  opposed.  Simi- 
lar also  is  Is.  52 :  1  ;  "  There  shall  no  more  come  into  thee  one  un- 
circumcised, and  unclean."  —  Gesenius  there  also  takes  "  uncircum- 
cised "  in  a  figurative  sense,  see  the  proof  in  Vitringa.  Examples  of  a 
designation  of  the  ungodly  by  the  name  of  one  particular  idolatrous  peo- 
ple, distinguished  by  peculiar  depth  of  moral  depravity,  are  the  follow- 
ing. Isaiah  (chap.  1  :  10)  addresses  the  princes  of  Israel  directly  as 
princes  of  Sodom  ;  the  people,  as  people  of  Gomorrah.  Zeph.  1:11, 
the  destruction  of  the  covenant  people  is  announced  by  the  words ; 
"  the  whole  people  of  Canaan  shall  be  extirpated."  The  Chaldee  par- 
aphrases very  correctly,  "  toius  populus,  cujus  opera  siviilia  sunt 
operibus  CanancBortim ;  "  still  there  lies  at  the  foundation,  as  is  shown 
by  what  follows,  an  allusion  to  the  import  of  the  word  merchant,  which 
is  too  much  magnified  by  Colin  {Spicil.  in  Zeph.  p.  32.)  The  ap- 
peal to  Ezek.  17  :  4,  can  prove  nothing,  since  there  also  |jy.3  cer- 
tainly cannot  be  translated  by  merchant.  Babylon  was  a  second  Ca- 
naan. Ezek.  16 :  3,  it  is  said,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  to  Jerusalem; 
thine  origin  and  thy  descent  are  out  of  the  land  of  the  Canaanites, 
thy  father  is  the  Amorite,  and  thy  mother  a  Hittite."  Accordingly, 
the  sense  of  the  passage  before  us  can  no  longer  be  doubtful.  It  is 
altogether  parallel  with  such  as  Is.  4:3,  "  Whosoever  remains  in 
Zion,  and  is  left  in  Jerusalem,  he  will  be  called  holy."  60  :  21  :  "  Thy 
people  are  all  righteous."  Apoc.  21  :  27 :  Kal  ov  fii]  fret'A^,??  dg  aiitrjv 
7X(iv  xoivGV,  xal  Ttoiovv  /jSilvyfia  xnl  ipsvdoc. '    fl  /^n)  ol  ysygafjusvoi  fv  tw 


ZECHARIAH  Chap.  14.   ,  291 

/5t/?Atoj  ttJ?  ^coijg  tov  agvlov.  22  :  15  :  "  t'Sw  oixvvsg  xal  oi  (faQfiaxol  koX  ol 
noQVOt,  xal  oi  (povelg,  y.al  nag  o  cpiXwv  xai  noicov  if/svdog.  The  mixture 
of  the  pious  and  ungodly,  as  it  existed  in  the  church  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  as  it  in  part  still  continues  in  that  of  the  new,  with  this 
difference,  nevertheless,  that  the  dead  members  who  joint  hemselves 
to  it  have  no  sort  of  right  in  it,  and  participate  in  none  of  its  bless- 
ings, all  of  which  are  received  only  through  faith,  is  here  contrasted 
with  the  perfect  purity  of  the  church  in  the  last  days,  to  be  effected 
by  the  Lord. 


THE    SEVENTY   WEEKS   OF   DANIEL. 
Chap.  9  :  v.  24  —  27. 


GENERAL     VIEW. 


Daniel  employs  himself,  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede,  with 
Jeremiah,  and  his  spirit  is  deeply  moved,  as  he  reads  anew  his  well- 
known  prophecy,  according  to  which,  the  affliction  of  the  covenant 
people,  their  servitude,  should  endure  seventy  years,  after  which,  their 
return,  and  the  commencement  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  city  and  the 
temple  connected  therewith,  should  take  place.  The  sixty-ninth  year 
had  now  already  arrived  (comp.  Beitr.  I.  p.  181,  ff.)  The  one  chief 
object  of  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  (chap.  25  —  29),  the  overthrow 
of  Babylon,  had  already  happened  ;  the  belief  in  the  truth  of  the  di- 
vine prediction  in  reference  to  the  others,  which  now  approached 
with  a  rapid  step,  and  whose  germ  already  existed,  had  therefore,  in 
the  visible  state  of  things,  a  ground  of  support.  Daniel  was  far  from 
doubting  the  divine  promise.  But  the  less  he  doubted,  the  more 
firmly  he  trusted  the  mercy  of  God,  the  deeper  he  understood  the 
divine  justice,  (for  even  this  required  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise, 
when  it  had  once  been  given),  so  much  the  more  did  he  feel  himself 
impelled  to  intercede  for  the  people,  the  temple,  and  the  city  of  the 
Lord.  The  true  naggrjola  in  prayer  to  the  Lord  flows  indeed  from 
the  conviction,  that  we  pray  xuta  to  d^ilvifia  aviov.  The  more  defi- 
nite the  promise,  the  stronger  the  faith,  and  the  more  heartfelt  the 
prayer.  Daniel  knew  that  the  Lord  would  be  supplicated  for  that, 
which  he  had  already  declared  himself  willing  to  give,  (Jerome  :  in 
cinere  ct  sacco  postulal  impleri  quod  promiserat  deus,  non  quod  cssct 
incredulus  futurorum,  sed  ne  securitas  negligentiam,  et  negUgentia 
pareret  offensam,)  —  as  in  the  Psalms  we  constantly  perceive,  that 
the  assurance  of  divine  help,  embraced  with   living  faith,  is  always 


GENERAL  VIEW.  293 

followed  by  new  supplications  for  the  actual  bestowment  of  the  prom- 
ised blessing.  He  at  the  same  time  reflected,  that  indeed  the  that 
and  the  when  of  the  beginning,  stood  irrevocably  firm  ;  but  in  refer- 
ence to  the  hoio  and  the  when  of  the  completion,  the  Lord  had  left 
himself  free  ;  and  that  in  this  respect,  therefore,  it  was  well  worth  the 
pains  to  address  to  the  God,  who  heareth  prayer,  to  whom  belongs 
not  a  dead  necessity,  but  a  living  freedom,  the  prayers,  which  he 
himself  had  excited  in  his  heart.  Daniel  therefore  sends  up  to  the 
Lord,  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  for  the  restoration  of  the  Theocracy, 
a  prayer  full  of  power  and  unction,  whose  spirit,  like  that  of  all  prayer, 
which  really  deserves  the  name,  is,  "  we  do  not  present  before  thee 
our  prayer,  on  account  of  our  own  righteousness,  but  of  thy  great 
mercy."  The  prayer  is  heard  by  him  who  had  given  it,  and  Ga- 
briel, the  mediator  of  all  revelations,  (comp.  p.  25,)  receives  the  com- 
mand to  impart  to  the  waiting  prophet  the  decree  determined  in 
heaven.  The  speediness  of  his  coming  indicates  a  joyful  message. 
This  is  as  follows.  As  a  compensation  for  the  70  years  in  which 
the  people,  the  city,  and  temple  have  be^  entirely  prostrate,  70  weeks 
of  years,  seven  times  70  years  of  a  renewed  existence,  shall  be  se- 
cured to  them  by  the  Lord  ;  and  the  end  of  this  period,  far  from 
bringing  the  mercies  of  God  to  a  close,  shall  for  the  first  time  be- 
stow them  on  the  Theocracy  in  their  complete  and  full  measure. 
With  it,  the  finished  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  introduction  of  everlast- 
ing righteousness,  the  actual  conferring  of  the  saving  blessings,  which 
the  prophets  promise,  the  anointing  of  a  holy  of  holies,  coincide. 
This  general  view,  contained  in  v.  24,  is  followed,  v.  25  —  27,  by  a 
more  accurate  detail,  the  date  of  the  terminus  a  quo,  the  division  of 
the  whole  period  into  several  smaller,  with  a  determination  of  the  char- 
acteristic mark  of  each,  the  divine  blessing,  by  which  it  is  distin- 
guished, the  determination  of  the  person  by  whom  the  last  and  great- 
est benefit  shall  be  obtained,  and  of  those,  to  whom  it  belongs,  with 
the  exclusion  of  those,  for  whom  it  is  not  destined.  1,  As  the  ter- 
minus a  quo  of  the  70  weeks,  the  command  of  God  to  rebuild  the 
cfty,  in  its  ancient  extent  and  glory,  is  given,  different  from  the 
terminus  ad  quern  of  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  as  this  relates  only  to 
the  return  from  captivity,  and  the  first  beginning  of  the  rebuilding  of 
the  city  necessarily  connected  therewith.  The  intermediate  time  be- 
tween this  termimis  of  Jeremiah,  and  that  of  Daniel,  is  not  reckoned 
to  the  covenant  people,  with  the  same  liberality  with  which  the  for- 
mer intermediate  condition,  the   18  years  from  the  fourth   year  of 


294  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

Jehoiachim  to  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  temple,  were  included 
in  the  70  years  of  affliction.  2.  The  whole  period  is  divided  into 
three  smaller,  7,  C2  and  1  week.  The  close  of  the  first  is  distin- 
guished by  the  completion  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  city ;  that  of  the 
second,  by  the  appearing  of  an  Anointed  One,  a  Prince  ;  that  of  the 
third,  by  the  finished  confirmation  of  the  covenant  with  the  many  for 
whom  the  saving  blessings  designated  in  v.  24,  as  belonging  to  the 
end  of  the  whole  period,  are  destined.  This  last  period  is  again  di- 
vided into  two  halves.  While  the  confirmation  of  the  covenant  ex- 
tends through  it,  from  beginning  to  end,  the  cessation  of  the  sacri- 
fice and  meat-offering,  and  the  death  of  the  Anointed  One,  on  which 
this  depends,  fall  in  the  middle  of  it.  3.  As  the  author  of  the  saving 
blessings  completed  in  the  end  of  the  70  weeks,  a  Messiah,  a  Prince 
appears ;  who,  after  having  in  the  end  of  the  69  weeks,  from  the  ter- 
minus a  quo  entered  upon  his  office,  and  throughout  the  half  of  the 
70th  week  confirmed  the  covenant  with  many,  dies  a  violent  death, 
by  which  sacrifices  and  meat-offerings  are  made  to  cease,  while  the 
confirmation  of  the  covenant  continues  even  after  his  death.  4.  The 
saving  blessings  to  be  bestowed  through  the  Anointed  One,  are  not 
destined  for  the  whole  people ;  on  the  contrary,  the  greater  part  of 
them,  after  being  excluded  for  the  murder  of  the  Anointed  One, 
from  his  kingdom  and  blessings,  will  become  a  prey  of  the  host  of  a 
foreign  prince  :  which,  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  an  avenging 
God,  will  utterly  destroy  the  fallen  city,  and  the  polluted  temple. 

The  whole  annunciation  is  of  a  consoling  import,  even  that  part 
of  it,  which  relates  to  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  the  temple,  and 
which  the  more  necessarily  belongs  to  the  whole,  the  more  uniformly 
the  prophets  combine  with  the  highest  manifestation  of  the  divine 
mercy  the  highest  manifestation  of  the  divine  justice  against  those 
who  despise  the  former.  The  purifying  judgments  of  God  are  for 
his  church,  a  blessing  ;  for  his  believers,  a  joy.  Comp.,  besides  the 
passages  already  cited  on  Zech.  13  :  7.,  Is.  65 :  13,  14  ;  66  :  24. 
Mai.  3  .  21,  Luke  21  :  28.  2  Mace.  6:13:  xal  lo  fiij  nolvv  xQovov 
dua&ui  Tovg  dvaai^oiiVTag,  aAA'  iv&ms  ntqininjtiv  inirifiloig,  fj,£yccXr]g 
tvagysalag  aij^tlov  iari-  a.  j.  A.  Daniel  had  not  indeed  prayed  for  the 
obdurate  and  ungodly,  but  for  those,  who  heartily  joined  with  him  in 
the  penitential  confession  of  sin.  These  are  the  only  objects  of  all 
promises,  and  of  the  tender  concern  of  the  prophets.  Daniel  njourus 
over  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  the  temple  by  the  Chaldeans. 
For  by  that,  the  outward  Theocracy,  which  still  existed,  was  in  part 


GENERAL  VIEW.  295 

done  away.  Only  in  that  respect,  is  tiie  destruction  of  the  city  and 
temple  the  object  of  his  complaint ;  only  on  that  account  does  he 
pray  for  their  restoration,  comp.  v.  15 —  19.  It  was  entirely  differ- 
ent in  respect  to  the  destruction  here  described.  What  could  the 
prediction  of  the  ruin  of  the  outward  temple  contain  in  itself  that  was 
distressing,  since  it  is  accompanied  by  that  of  the  anointing  of  a  new 
holy  of  holies  ?  What  the  cessation  of  the  dominion  of  the  Anointed 
One  over  the  covenant  people,  since  it  is  accompanied  by  the  con- 
firmation of  the  covenant  for  the  many,  who  alone  were  dear  to  the 
prophet?  What  the  abolition  of  sacrifices,  since  that  which  it  partly 
only  prefigured,  and  partly  outwardly  procured  for  the  outward  The- 
ocracy, the  forgiveness  of  sin  and  justification,  should  be  first  really 
and  perfectly  procured  by  the  same  event,  whereby  the  sacrifice  was 
done  away?  We  now  lament  over  the  downfall  of  the  Evangelical 
Church,  as  Daniel  over  the  Chaldaic  desolations.  But,  who  of  us 
would  continue  this  complaint,  if  the  Lord  had  made  all  new, 
and  abolished  all  outward  churches?  Who  would  indeed  bewail 
the  loss  of  the  maxn  aToi%eti/.,  the  corpse,  from  which  the  spirit  had 
departed  1 

The  divine  ans-wer,  according  to  the  representation  given,  stands 
in  the  closest  relation  to  the  prayer  of  Daniel.  This  needs,  in  refer- 
ence to  V.  24,  to  be  shown,  in  opposition  to  Michaelis  (  Uber  die  70 
Jahrtvochen,  p.  12  ff.)  and  Jahn,  ( Vaticc.  Mess.  II.  p.  124,)  who,  by 
misapprehending  this  relation,  have  been  led  to  the  most  violent 
changes  of  the  text.  They  afiirm,  that  the  inquiry  is  concerning  the 
people,  city,  and  temple  ;  the  answer,  concerning  the  Messiah,  ac- 
cording to  the  existing  text.  Daniel  prays,  that  the  captivity  might 
come  to  an  end  at  the  termination  of  the  70  years  predicted  by  Jere- 
miah. The  answer  must,  in  any  event,  refer  to  the  same  70  years, 
and  either  promise,  or  produce  the  end  of  the  captivity,  after  they 
have  run  their  course.  But  these  assertions  rest  on  a  pure  mistake. 
Daniel  was  led  to  make  his  prayer  by  reading  the  prophecy  of  Jere- 
miah. But  where  do  we  find  a  word  to  show  that  he  had  prayed  for 
the  restoration  in  precisely  the  year  designated  by  Jeremiah  ?  His 
prayer  was  entirely  limited  to  the  restoration  of  the  people,  city,  and 
temple  ;  he  nowhere  makes  mention  of  a  time.  That  the  question 
related  merely  to  the  outward  restoration,  is  just  as  erroneous,  as  that 
the  answer  referred  only  to  the  Messiah.  The  chief  supplication  of 
Daniel  relates  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  comp.  v.  19.  And  as  this, 
according  to  the  uniform  prediction  of  all  the  prophets,  would   first 


296  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

be  vouchsafed  most  completely  by  the  Messiah,  so  (he  prayer  for  it, 
included  in  itself,  that  for  the  coming  of  his  kingdom.  The  predic- 
tion of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  to  be  effected  by  the  Messiah,  stands  in 
close  connexion  with  the  confession  of  sin  in  v.  5.  That  the  answer 
does  not  speak  of  the  people,  city,  and  temple,  who  can  assert, 
since  it  begins  immediately  with  the  words,  "  70  years  are  determin- 
ed upon  thy  people,  and  upon  thy  holy  city,"  which  predicate  pre- 
supposes the  existence  of  that  which  made  the  city  holy,  the  temple? 
How  could  Daniel's  prayer  for  the  restoration  well  be  more  signally 
answered,  than  by  the  annunciation,  that  it  should  not  merely  hap- 
pen in  general,  but  should  also  endure  through  so  long  a  period  ? 
Exactly  as,  in  chap.  10  —  12,  the  disclosures,  which  Daniel  suppli- 
cates, in  consequence  of  a  special  mournful  event,  respecting  the  fu- 
ture condition  of  the  covenant  people,  far  surpass  his  prayer.  That 
the  prediction,  that  at  the  end  of  70  weeks,  those  greatest  of  all 
blessings  should  be  bestowed  upon  the  covenant  people  and  upon  the 
holy  city,  presupposes  its  continuance  during  this  time,  was  seen  by 
the  older  interpreters  ;  for  their  neglect  of  whom,  Michaelis,  Jahn,  and 
others,  have  had  to  suffer.  Thus  e.  g.  Frischmuth  remarks,  in  the 
Thes.  Theol.  Philol.  I.  p.  905  :  "Scopus  angeli  est  indicare,  ccquid  sit 
populo  et  urhi  futurum,  nempe  hanc  recedificandam,  et  populum,  qui 
70  annis  exilio  hcBserat,  suam  politiam  habiturtim,  et  qiiidem  septuplo 
diutius,  quam  in  exilio  egci'at."  And  what,  in  v.  24,  is  intimated  merely 
as  a  grand  sketch,  in  accordance  with  his  design,  is  farther  carried 
out  in  the  following  verse.  That  the  answer  must  refer  especially  to 
the  terminus  ad  quern  given  by  Jeremiah,  can  be  required  only  by 
the  false  supposition,  that  Daniel  had  doubts,  whether  God  would  ad- 
here to  this.  If  he  were  certain  of  this,  which  could  not  be  other- 
wise, he  only  needed  instruction  concerning  the  far  greater  and  more 
important  matters,  with  which  the  answer  is  concerned. 


INTERPRETATION. —V.  24.  297 

[NTERPRETATION. 

Versk  24. 

"  Seventy  weeks  are  cut  off  upon  thy  people,  and  upon  thy  holy  city, 
to  shut  up  transgression,  and  to  seal  up  sin,  and  to  cover  guilt,  and 
to  bring  everlasting  righteousness,  and  to  seal  up  vision  and  prophet, 
and  to  anoint  a  holy  of  holies." 

"  Seventy  Weeks" 

The  word  loeeks  is  here  masc.  in  form  and  construction,  while  it  is 
elsewhere  commonly  fern.  This  has  given  a  welcome  pretext  to 
those,  who  wished  to  change  the  text,  and  led  those,  who  retain  it, 
to  several  erroneous  opinions.  Thus  Bertholdt  (p.  646.)  asserts,  that 
the  masc.  form,  elsewhere  not  used,  has  been  chosen  here  only  on  ac- 
count of  the  similarity  of  sound,  with  D^'Dty,  not  considering,  that 
jmB'  not  only  here,  v.  27,  which  might  indeed  be  explained  by  the 
influence  of  the  use  of  the  masc.  form  in  the  verse  before  us,  but  also 
chap.  10 :  23,  occurs  as  masc.  in  respect  to  form  and  construction, 
without  any  reference  to  D^'iOK'.  Ewald  (p.  319.)  asserts  an  en- 
tirely arbitrary  confounding  of  the  gender,  as  is  often  the  case  in  later 
writers.  But  we  can  only  have  recourse  to  this  supposition,  when 
the  assumption,  on  which  it  rests,  of  the  elsewhere  exclusively  femi- 
nine gender  of  this  word,  is  established  by  a  thorough  investigation. 
This,  however,  is  by  no  means  the  case ;  that  the  word  was  originally 
masc.  appears  on  the  contrary,  from  Gen.  29:27,  HNI  i^.3!if  xbo, 
"  Make-full  the  week  of  this  one,  first  celebrate  with  her  the  festival  of 
seven  days."  The  masc.  form,  which  here  occurs  in  a  word  in  which 
the  gender  is  so  little  included  in  the  idea,  shows  that  it  was  origin- 
ally regarded  as  masc.  In  these  words,  however,  in  which  the  fem. 
is  only  ideal,  and  more  or  less  arbitrary,  we  still  discover  almost  uni- 
formly traces  of  the  original  masc.  This  coexistence  of  both  gen- 
ders must  be  supposed  in  the  word  before  us,  the  more  because  it  is 
properly  a  participle  septcmized.  In  attributive  words,  however, 
whether  adjectives  or  participles,  the  gender  is  regularly  expressed 
in  the  form ;  comp.  Ewald,  p.  308 ;  so  that  the  existence  of  the  masc. 
form  V}lt  implies  also  that  of  the  masc.  gender.  i'O*^  with  the 
plur.  D^J^.p^?  is  a  septcmized  period,  n>'m^%  of  which  the  plur.  nil'.p!^ 
is  a  septemizcd  time.     In  both  cases  nj'   is  properly  to  be  supplied, 

VOL.  u.  38 


298  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

and  there  is  less  occasion  to  assume  a  determination  of  the  gender, 
since  in  this  word  it  is  still  doubtful.  How  little  i^nti^  and  ^V?^ 
has  laid  aside  its  nature  as  an  attributive,  appears  from  Ezek.  45 : 
21,  where  the  passover  is  called  D'n^  ni'?'^  jn,  "the  feast  of  the  sep- 
temized  (periods)  of  days;"  the  feast,  where  the  days  are  divided  into 
septemized  periods,  where,  during  seven  days,  unleavened  bread  is 
eaten. 

In  favor  of  pla.cing  the  numerals  last,  a  circumstance,  from  which 
in  like  manner  an  argument  has  been  drawn,  to  render  suspicious 
the  correctness  of  the  text,  numerous  examples  are  found  in  the  num- 
bers from  20  lo  90,  comp.  Gesen.  Lehrg.  p.  698.  It  may  here  well 
have  been  occasioned  by  the  effort  to  render  prominent  the  antithesis 
of  the  "weeks  of  years"  with  the  "years"  of  Jeremiah.  The  usual 
position  of  words  is  departed  from,  when  a  word  is  to  be  rendered 
emphatic  ;  comp.  Ewald,  p.  633. 

But  what  justifies  us  in  understanding  by  the  weeks,  weeks  of  years, 
periods  of  seven  years?  One  reason,  which  interpreters  usually  bring 
forward,  viz.  that  the  prophet,  while,  chap.  JO  :  2,  he  designates  the 
usual  weeks,  as  weeks  of  days,  himself  intimates,  that  he  speaks  be- 
fore of  another  sort  of  weeks,  appears,  as  Sostmann,  De  70'Hebdom. 
Lugd.  1710,  has  already  shown  on  a  nearer  examination,  as  untena- 
ble. It  is  there  said,  "  I,  Daniel,  mourn  ;"  D^p;  D^i'.?"^  ntyiSK>. 
That  we  must  not  here  translate,  "  three  weeks  of  days,"  but  "  three 
days  long,"  that  □'•p^  is  the  same,  which  is  very  often  subjoined  to  the 
determinations  of  time  in  order  to  show  that  they  are  accurate  even  to 
the  day,  is  evident  from  the  sfat.  ahsol.  D';,^?'^*.  The  chief  ground 
is  rather  the  reference  to  the  70  years  of  Jeremiah.  From  this  we 
learn,  that  70  ordinary  weeks  cannot  be  intended.  For,  what  sort  of 
a  consolation  would  it  have  been  for  Daniel,  if  it  had  been  announced 
to  him,  that,  as  a  compensation  for  the  70  years  of  desolation,  the  city 
should  continue  70  ordinary  weeks,  until  a  new  destruction  1  More- 
over, Daniel  himself  could  perceive,  that  the  discourse  did  not  refer 
to  ordinary  weeks,  from  the  variety  of  the  events,  which  should  occur 
within  the  period.  But,  if  the  weeks  spoken  of  were  extraordinary, 
he  would  be  the  more  compelled  to  regard  them  as  weeks  of  years, 
since  these  weeks  occupy  so  important  a  place  in  the  Mosaic  consti- 
tution, and  since  the  exile  had  brought  them  anew  into  lively  remem- 
brance, inasmuch  as  the  70  years'  desolation  was  considered  as  a 
punishment  for  neglecting  to  celebrate  the  sabbatical  years ;  comp.  2 
Chron.  36:21.     It  is  true,  that  these  periods  of  seven  years  in  the 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  24.  299 

law  are  not  called  D''J^?K'  or  nu'ptt',  but  that  they  were  nevertheless 
to  be  considered  as  weeks,  appears  from  the  frequent  designation  of 
the  7th  year,  as  the  great  Sabbath,  or  as  the  Sabbath  simply  ;  comp. 
Lev.  25  :  2,  4,  5,  26:34,  35  :  43,  2  Chron.  36  :  21.  The  obscurity, 
which  perhaps  would  have  still  remained,  has  been  removed  by  the 
fulfilment.  We  cannot  fail  to  perceive,  that  the  more  indefinite  de- 
termination of  time,  the  import  of  which  must  have  been  more  con- 
cealed, as  it  lay  in  the  word  itself,  was  intentionally  chosen,  in  order 
not  to  destroy  the  boundaries  between  prophecy  and  history.  The 
effort  to  avoid,  on  the  one  hand,  an  uncertain  indefiniteness, 
which  might  be  made  an  objection  against  the  divine  origin  of  the 
prophecy,  and  prevent  its  aim  ;  and,  on  the  other,  the  destruction  of 
its  proper  relation  to  history  ;  appears  throughout  in  this  section,  and 
has  been  in  a  wonderful  manner  realized.  An  entirely  analogous 
example  of  a  determination  of  time,  indefinite  in  itself,  but  rendered    k  •     t 

definite  by  the  aid  of  history,  is  found  in  Xee^arrah  himself,  chap.  O  Ou-saA-^ 
4,  v.  20;  comp.  Beitr.  I.  p.  112  ff.  But  what  induced  the  prophet 
to  choose  precisely  this  measure  of  time  1  In  the  first  place,  this 
very  effort  after  concealed  definiteness.  This,  in  respect  to  what  was 
concealed,  could  not  be  realized,  if  he  used  the  ordinary  mode  of 
reckoning  ;  if  he  gave  the  number  of  the  years,  which  would  elapse 
before  the  given  terminus  ad  qucm.  And  it  could  be  just  as  little 
effected,  in  reference  to  the  definiteness,  if  he  had  chosen  an  other- 
wise entirely  unknown,  and  arbitrarily  invented  measure  of  time  ; 
such  an  one,  perhaps,  as  the  prophetic  years  of  Bengel.  It  might 
then  have  been  replied,  that  it  were  very  easy  to  give  such  determina- 
tions of  time,  which  were  rendered  definite  solelij  by  the  fulfilment. 
Another  ground  is  furnished  in  its  relation  to  the  TO  years  of  Jere- 
miah. It  was  very  important  in  respect  to  the  relation  of  the  divine 
mercy  to  the  divine  anger,  that,  to  the  70  years,  which,  according  to 
v.  2,  should  be  completed  upon  tlie  ruins  of  Jerusalem,  there  should 
be  placed,  in  opposition,  a  70  of  another  sort;  multiplying  the  70 
years  by  7,  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  city  after  it  should  be  rebuilt.  And 
besides,  7  and  70  were  perfect  and  sacred  numbers,  and  the  more 
adapted  to  the  divine  chronology,  as  the  remembrance  of  the  creation 
of  the  world  was  connected  with  them.  Lastly,  the  choice  of  this 
determination  of  time  with  reference  to  the  year  of  Jubilee,  cannot 
well  be  doubted.  Seven  weeks  of  years  lasted  the  cycle,  in  the  end 
of  which  fell  the  civil  restitutio  in  integrum;  all  debts  were  remitted  ; 
nil  slaves  emancipated  :  t!ie  alienntod  lands  restored  to  their  posse.ss- 


300  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

ors.  The  last  of  70  weeks  of  years,  is  the  highest  of  all  Sabbaths, 
the  time  of  the  spiritual  restitutio  in  integrum,  the  removal  and  the 
expiation  of  all  guilt.* 

^' Are  cut  off" 

Here,  the  apparent  anomaly  of  the  number  first  requires  an  inves- 
tigation. It  is  explained  by  the  circumstance,  that  the  70  Hebdo- 
mades  here  come  under  consideration,  not  as  particulars,  but  as 
one  whole,  i.  q.  di  period  oil  Q  Hebdomades  is  determined.  Analo- 
gous, e.  g.,  is  Gen.  46  :  22,  "  this  the  sons  of  Rachel,"  ^pj^:'?  nb^  -itt{X, 
not  the  individual  sons  with  the  .individuals,  but  the  whole  posterity 
of  Jacob  by  Rachel,  is  contrasted  with  that  by  the  remaining  wives  ; 
comp.  35  :  26,  Jer.  44  :  9  :  "  Have  ye  forgotten  the  wickedness  of 
the  kings  of  Judah?*"  viyj  nij^'n  nxi.  The  stress  is  here  laid  not  on 
the  individual  kings,  as  such,  but  on  the  whole  body  of  them,  Eccles. 
2:  7,  "men-servants,  and  maid-servants,"  '•'?  n^n  n;;5 ''J31.  In  all 
these  cases,  precisely  the  opposite  of  the  rule  occurs,  (comp.  Ewald, 
p.  640.)  "  Nouns  in  the  singular  can  be  joined,  according  to  their  im- 
port, with  the  plural,  when  the  object  consists  of  individual,  inde- 
pendent members,  particularly  persons."  In  such  cases,  the  fern, 
sing,  regularly  stands.  Where,  instead  of  this,  as  in  the  cited  passa- 
ges, and  in  that  before  us,  the  sing.  masc.  is  placed,  a  reason  for  it 
can  always  be  shown.  Thus,  Gen.  1.  c,  Eccles.  2,  Jer.  44,  the  inap- 
propriateness  of  joining  male  individuals  with  the  f em. ;  in  the  passage 
before  us,  because  the  author  did  not  consider  the  70  weeks  as  an 
abstract,  for  which  the  fern,  is  the  distinguishing  form,  but  because 
there  was  before  his  mind  a  definite  noun,  time,  or  space,  comp.  ny. 
as  masc.  11  :  14.     Perfectly  corresponding  is  Eccles.  1:  10.  D'oSirS 

The  meaning  of  the  an.  kty.  'ijnn  is  sufficiently  ascertained,  by  a 
comparison  of  the   Chaldaic  and    Rabbinic  '^jnn,  to  cut  off.     True, 

*  There  are  to  be  found  also  in  heathen  writers,  traces  of  a  similar  mode  of 
reckoning-.  Marcus  Varro,  after  he  had  developed,  in  the  first  of  his  books, 
called  Hchdomades,  the-  significancy  of  the  number  7  in  natural  things,  (in 
4.  1 1  ;  the  extract  in  Gellius,  3.  10,)  subjoins,  "  se  quoquc  jam  duodecimam  anno- 
rum  hcbdomadam  ingressum  esse,  et  ad  eum  diem  septuaginta  hebdomadus  lihro- 
rum  coriscripsisse."  Here  also,  as  in  Daniel,  the  choice  of  this  mode  of  reckon- 
ing rests  on  definite  grounds  ;  partly  on  the  preceding  exhibition  of  the  impor- 
tance of  the  number  7,  partly  on  an  intentional  combination  of  the  7  years,  and  7 
books. 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  24.  301 

J.  D.  Michaelis  asserts  {Uber  die  70  Wochen,  p.  42.),  that  this  Chal- 
daic  and  Rabbinic  '^inn  might  very  well  have  been  derived  from  the 
passage  before  us ;  but  this  supposition  would  then  only  be  probable, 
if  the  word  there,  as  in  the  Targum,  Esth.  4  :  5,  was  used  only  in 
the  figurarive  sense,  to  decide,  resolve.  This  might  have  been  con- 
jectured in  the  passage  before  us,  from  the  connexion.  As,  however, 
^nn  occurs  also  in  the  literal  sense  to  cut  off,  (comp.  D'pm'n,  partes, 
portione.s,  pars  secta  et  abscissa,  "itf^  Sty  nDTin  according  to  the 
Miklal^Jophi ,  incisio  carnis,)  which  could  in  no  way  be  inferred  from 
this  passage,  the  suspicion  seems  to  be  groundless.  Several  interpre- 
ters also  assume,  that  to  cut  off,  here  stands  precisely  for,  to  resolve, 
appealing  to  the  fact,  that  the  verbs  of  abscission  in  the  Shemitish 
languages  are  not  unfrequently  used  in  the  sense  of  determination, 
(comp.  examples,  among  others,  in  Gesen.  Thes.,  s.  v.  it  J.)  Thus 
the  Seventy  :  ijSdo^u^novTa  (^doi.tuSfg  ix  Qi&'ri  a av inl tov  Xaov  aov.  But 
the  very  use  of  the  word,  which  does  not  elsewhere  occur,  while 
others,  much  more  frequently  used  were  at  hand,  if  Daniel  had  wish- 
ed to  express  the  idea  of  determination,  and  of  which  he  has  else- 
where, and  even  in  this  portion,  availed  himself;  seems  to  argue,  that 
the  word  stands  here  from  regard  to  its  original  meaning,  and  rep- 
resents the  seventy  weeks  in  contrast  with  a  determination  of  time 
iv  nXdiH,  as  a  period  cut  off  from  subsequent  duration,  and  accurately 
limited.  Thus  was  the  word  understood  by  Theodotion,  who  trans- 
lates it  by  Gvvsrnrj&i]aav.  It  is  true,  that  Theodoret,  in  commenting 
upon  the  translation  of  Theodotion,  asserts,  that  awiijirHv  here  has 
the  meaning  of  determining  {avv8Tfj.i]&rjaav,  avzl  tov  idoxifiuaS^ijaav 
y.ul  ixQl&'t]anv  '  ovio)  yag  Tivsg  sg^rjvivroiv  eydsdcaxaaiv),  and  this  asser- 
tion has  been  repeated  by  modern  critics,  as  beyond  all  doubt,  (comp. 
e.  g.  Schleusner,  Thes.,  s.  v.,  and  Von  Colin,  in  the  Analckten,  3.  2, 
p.  38).  But  it  is  entirely  wanting  in  proof,  from  the  usage  of  pro- 
fane writers,  as  well  as  of  the  Greek  translators.  Kypke,  on  Rom. 
9  :  28,  has  shown  that  awii^vsiv  has  always  the  sense  circumcidere, 
abbreviare ,  never  that  of  decernere,  chcidere.  In  this  sense,  the  Vul- 
gate, also,  (70  Hebdomades  abbreviatcB  sunt  super  populum  tuum,) 
takes  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  expression.  A  shortened  time,  is  a 
time  accurately  determined  and  limited. 


302  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 


"  Over  thy  people,  and  over  thy  holy  city." 

The  words  K^np  l']^  are  considered  as  a  compound  noun,  and  the 
sujf.  relates,  therefore,  to  the  compound  idea.  Cases  like  this,  where 
the  suff.  relates,  not  to  God,  but  to  Daniel,  show  very  plainly,  that  trans- 
lations like  that  of  ^^1\>~'^\1  in  Ps.  2:6,  by  "  mountain  of  my  holi- 
ness," are  not  justified  even  by  the  addition,  "  literal."  Among  the 
Jews,  the  ignorance  of  this  construction,  which  always  occurs  when 
the  second  noun  describes  only  an  attribute  of  the  first,  and  there- 
fore serves  only  to  complete  the  idea,  —  corap.  e.  g.  Prov.  24:  31, 
n^33X  n-T.4,  "  her  stone  wall,"  Eccles,  12:  5,  inSj;  n'3,  "  his  everlast- 
ing house,"  Is.  64  :  10,  Neh.  9  :  14,  —  has  been  the  occasion  of  even 
doctrinal  absurdities.  They  conclude,  from  Is.  56:  7,  where  the  Lord 
calls  the  temple  'ri-?3n  n'D.  that  God  himself  prays. 

Why  is  Jerusalem  called  the  holy  city  of  Daniel  ?  After  Theodor., 
Chrysost.,  Jerome,  Vitringa  remarks,  "  Non  mecB  sed  tuce,  quod  in- 
dignationis  divincB  argumentum  eat,  peccatis  populi  nondum  expiatis. 
But  by  this  interpretation,  an  entirely  foreign  element  is  introduced 
into  the  context ;  the  richer  the  blessings,  which  the  Lord  in  this 
verse  promises  to  his  people,  the  less  suitable  is  such  a  designation. 
.  The  correct  view  is  rather  that  of  Ch.  B.  Michaelis,  and  others;  the 
thy  intimates  the  tender  love  of  Daniel  towards  his  people,  as  express- 
ed in  the  preceding  prayer.  This  love  compelled  Daniel  to  interces- 
sion, and  this  latter  is  in  v.  23,  represented  as  the  occasion  of  the 
decree,  which  is  here  revealed  to  Daniel ;  so  that  the  thy,  at  the  same 
time,  reminds  him  of  this  occasion,  comp.  12:  1. 

*'  To  shut  up  transgression." 

In  the  word  xbriS  is  combined  a  double  reading,  which  the  inter- 
preters have  overlooked.  The  points  do  not  belong  to  the  Kethih, 
which  is  rather  to  be  pointed  ^'^ZiS,  but  to  the  Keri.  That  such  a 
supposition  is  not  by  any  means,  in  general,  to  be  rejected,  appears 
from  the  following  remarks.  When  the  difference  between  the  re- 
ceived reading,  and  the  supposed  emendation,  consisted  only  in  the 
vowels,  the  Masorites  did  not  write  in  the  margin  the  consonants  of 
the  latter,  which  coincided  with  those  of  the  former.  They  indicated 
a  double  reading  by  another  method,  which  varied  indeed  according 
to   circumstances.     1.   Where  the  word  itself,  or  the  context,  did  not 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  24.  303 

distinguish  as  such  the  vowels  of  the  marginal  reading,  which  were 
placed  under  the  reading  of  the  text,  where,  therefore,  entirely  against 
their  principle,  the  marginal  reading,  if  they  had  simply  placed  under 
its  points,  would  havs  appeared  as  the  only  one,  they  gave  to  the 
word  a  mixed  punctuation,  taken  from  both  readings.  An  example  of 
this  is  furnished  by  <^iy.  Ps.  7  :  6.  The  reading  of  the  text  was  here 
^Tl],  as  fut.  in  Pi.  The  Masorites  chose  to  read  instead,  the  Jut. 
in  Kal  ^"^y.,  because  Kal,  in  the  sense  to  persecute,  is  far  more  fre- 
quent than  Pi.,  which,  however,  as  an  intensive  form,  was  particu- 
larly suitable  here,  where  the  most  violent,  repeated,  and  unceasing 
persecution  was  to  be  designated.  That  the  word  combined  in  itself 
a  twofold  punctuation  was  sufficiently  indicated  by  the  form,  which, 
without  this  supposition,  was  a  grammatical  absurdity.  In  several 
manuscripts,  whose  authors  were  bolder  thnn  the  Masorites,  pre- 
cisely the  form  '^1'!^  occurs.  Another  example  is  •in?f'^n.,  Ps.  62  :  4, 
in  many  editions  and  manuscripts.  The  reading  of  the  text  is  here 
irivfnn,  as  a  rarer  form  of  the  fut.  PL,  with  the  rejection  of  Dagesh, 
the  place  of  which  is  supplied  by  the  lengthening  of  the  preceding 
vowel;  the  marginal  reading  =in2fnn,  as  the  usual  fut.  in  Pi.  Also 
Ps.  80 :  11,  in  IDD,  properly  no  form  at  all,  a  double  reading  is  com- 
bined ;  that  of  the  text  103,  praet.  Kal ;  that  of  the  margin  ^DD, 
preet.  Pi.  The  Massorites  were  led  to  their  supposed  emendation, 
by  a  misunderstanding  of  the  construction  which  necessarily  requires 
the  intransitive  Kal  (instead  of  "  the  mountains  were  covered  with 
its  shadow,"  they  explain,  "  its  shadows  covered  the  mountains," 
with  an  inadmissible  understanding  of  Sv;  as  a  collective),  and  also 
by  the  fact,  that  HDD  in  Kal  does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  the  Prae- 
ter.  In  the  manuscripts,  this  combination  of  a  double  pointing  is  still 
more  frequent  than  in  the  editions  ;  comp.  Michaelis,  Or.  Bibl.  III. 
p.  236,  Ewald,  p.  489.  2.  Where,  from  the  context,  or  from  the  word 
itself,  the  vowels  could  be  known  as  not  belonging  to  the  reading 
of  the  text,  the  Masorites  simply  place  them  under  it.  An  example 
is  furnished  Ps.  59:  11.  The  reading  of  the  text  is  npn  'hSk 
""^P.^PJ.  fl^us  mens,  gratia  ejus  praiveniet  me.  The  Masorites 
preferred  to  read  ''J^I'^P?  ""790  "'n'^.5?,  •'  my  gracious  God  will  prevent 
me."  They  gave  now  to  ^vhii.  precisely  the  points  of  the  marginal 
reading,  because  every  one  immediately  saw,  that,  on  account  of  the 
following  n?n,  these  did  not  suit  the  reading  of  the  text.  —  To  this 
last  class  belongs  the  case  before  us.  The  verb  vh^  never  occurs 
in  Piel ;  it  was  sufficient,  therefore,  to  give  to  the  word  the  vowels  of 


304     ■  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

Piel,  in  order  to  show,  that,  along  with  the  usual  reading,  sufficiently 
indicated  by  the  form  itself,  there  was  another,  which  pointed  the 
form  according  to  its  derivation  from  x^D  =  n^D. 

We  now  investigate  the  sense  which  both  readings  give.  All 
senses  of  the  verb  iihD  unite  in  that  of  hindering,  restraining,  and 
limiting.  From  this  general  meaning,  that  of  shutting  up,  and  lock- 
ing up,  is  easily  derived.  This  is  found,  e.  g.  Ps.  88  :  9,  "I  am 
shut  up,  X'l'??,  and  cannot  go  forth."  Jer.  32  : 2,  3,  xV.?  n^3.  and  T\'3 
NlSsn  has  the  meaning  prison.  The  interpreters  here,  for  the  most 
part,  adopt  the  general  meaning,  that  transgression  shall  be  controll- 
ed. The  special  meaning,  to  shut  up,  however,  agrees  better  with 
the  following,  to  seal,  and  to  cover.  The  sealing  presupposes  a  shut- 
ting up. 

The  marginal  reading,  "  to  finish  trangression,"  can  be  explained 
in  two  ways  ;  either  "  to  fill  the  measure  of  sin,"  comp.  Gen.  15  :  16, 
Matt.  23  :  32  {vfislg  nlrjgojaaxe  to  ixetqov  iwv  nuxigoiv  vfnav),  or,  "  to 
make  an  end  of  sin."  Admitting  the  correctness  of  the  marginal 
reading,  the  latter  explanation  should  unquestionably  be  preferred. 
For,  as  we  shall  afterward  see,  the  discourse,  throughout  the  whole 
verse,  relates  only  to  blessings,  and  not  to  punishments. 

If  now  we  inquire,  which  of  the  two  readings  is  preferable,  we 
must  unquestionably  decide  in  favor  of  that  of  the  text.  An  impor- 
tant advantage  in  its  favor  is  derived  even  from  the  general  relation 
of  the  marginal  readings  to  those  in  the  text.  A  more  careful  ex- 
amination shows  that  the  Keris,  with  few  exceptions,  are  mere  sud- 
den thoughts  of  illiberal  Jewish  critics,  and  therefore  have  no  more 
external  authority  than  the  conjecture  of  a  Houbigant,  and  J.  D. 
Michaelis.  The  decision  of  Danz  is  almost  perfectly  justified 
(Litter.  Heir.  Chald.  p.  67.)  :  "  No7i  datur  TT\3,  quod  exercitatis  ac 
omnia  accurate  perpendentibus  non  pariat  sensum  commodum  ;  quid- 
quid  huic  sub  nomine  "''(p  quocunque  pratextu  superadditur,  inventum 
est  mere  humanum  et  uliam  penes  me  notam  non  invenit,  quam  inter- 
pretationis  ut  plurimum  satis  fcliciter  institutoi,  subinde  tamen  temere 
et  in  ignominiam  sacri  scriptoris  susceptce."  Here,  however,  there 
is  the  less  reason  to  suppose  an  external  authority,  as  the  ground  of 
the  Keri,  since  the  difference  consists  merely  in  the  vowels,  as  the 
Masorites  themselves  did  not  venture  to  substitute  hSd  for  nSd, 
but  only,  by  their  punctuation,  to  express  the  opinion,  that  vHd 
here  stood  for  T^^D  ;  a  mere  exegetical  conjecture,  which  is  not 
raised  to  any  higher  dignity  by  its  appearing  to  have  been  entertain- 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  24.  305 

ed  by  the  ancient  translators,  (Aquil.  and  Theod.  tov  avvtsXiaai. 
Seventy,  avvTslsa&iiviu  jt]v  uftagTiav)  ;  especially,  as  its  origin  can 
be  so  easily  explained.  In  the  expression,  which  does  not  elsewhere 
occur,  "  to  restrain,"  or  "  shut  up  sin,"  they  found  great  difficulty  ;  the 
meaning,  to  finish,  seemed  admirably  to  suit  what  followed,  as  well 
according  to  the  marginal  reading,  as  that  in  the  text.  For  those, 
also,  who  followed  the  latter,  unanimously  explained  the  sealing,  by 
ending,  completing.  What,  however,  especially  favored  the  marginal 
reading,  was  the  effort  of  the  Jews,  which  is  seen  in  their  interpre- 
ters almost  without  exception,  to  convert  the  promises  of  the  verse 
in.to  threatenings  ;  which  was  altogether  natural,  since  they  well 
knew  the  punishments,  which  ensued  at  the  end  of  the  70  weeks  of 
years,  but  not  the  blessings,  and  therefore  must  have  been  desirous 
to  do  away  the  references  to  the  latter.  Even  Aquila  translates,  in- 
stead of"  upon,"  &:.c.  x«tw,  contra,  tov  kuov  aov  xixl  rijg  nolswg  ttJq 
aylotg  aov,  and,  corresponding  with  this,  the  following,  toU  avvTiUaoa, 
T1JJ'  a&salav  xal  tov  jsXeimaaL  u^iuQxiav. 

That  the  prophet  has  used  nSd  in  the  sense  of  hSd,  could  be  es- 
tablished only  by  certain  proofs,  as  hSd  is  often  found  in  him,  and 
constantly  with  n  (comp.  v.  27,  11  :  36,  12  :  7),  and  as,  in  general, 
the  roots  with  n  much  more  seldom  borrow  forms  from  those  with 
^,  than  the  reverse,  (comp.  Ewald,  p.  453,)  so  that  we  cannot  ap- 
peal to  the  forms  of  xSd  frequently  borrowed  from  tHd.  nh»3  is  never 
found  with  N.  The  proofs  therefore  must  consist  solely  in  the  inter- 
nal advantages  of  the  marginal  reading.  These,  however,  cannot 
be  found,  any  more  than  the  external.  The  admirable  suitableness 
of  shitting  lip,  sealing,  covering,  to  one  another,  decides  in  favor  of 
the  reading  of  the  text.  Sin,  which  hitherto  lay  naked  and  open  be- 
fore the  eyes  of  the  righteous  God,  is  now  by  his  mercy  shut  up, 
sealed,  and  covered,  so  that  it  can  no  more  be  regarded  as  existing; 
a  figurative  designation  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  analogous  to  those, 
where  it  is  said,  "  to  conceal  the  face  from  sin,  and  cause  it  to  pass 
away,"  &,c. 

"  And  to  seal  sin." 

The  sealing  is  here,  by  several  interpreters,  taken  as  a  figurative 
designation  of  completing  or  finishing.  So  Theod.  iacpQayias  8k  rag 
afjLttQTiag,  nuvaug  fisy  rt/V  xaia  royov  nohniuv,  t»)v  ds  tov  nriv/j^aTOg 
doigrjaotfiivog  x'^Qi'V-     Several  ancient  interpreters  reject  the  trope  thus 

VOL.  n.  39 


306  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

understood,  while  Theodotion  retains  it.  So  the  Seventy,  y.al  rag 
adixiag  wnavlaai;  Aquila,  nal  tov  ifXncoaai  aftngiio:!' ;  Vulg.,  "  ut 
consummetur  prcBvaricatio."  That  these  translations  are  to  be  thus 
explained,  and  not,  perhaps,  as  is  commonly  done,  from  a  various 
reading,  most  evidently  appears  from  the  fact,  that  the  Seventy  in 
the  following  Dnrj  also,  where  no  trace  of  a  various  reading  is  found, 
again  reject  the  trope  (x«t  avvTiX^aQ^iivai  r«  oQctfjiaja  x«t  Tr^oqpTjr?;!'), 
as  also  does  the  Vulg.,  et  impleatur  visio  et  propheta,  while  Theo- 
dotion, adhering  to  his  verbal  mode  of  rendering,  translates  xixl  tov 
aq)Qnyiatti  oqaaiv  y.al  nQocp-^Ttjv,  which,  with  exactly  the  same  rejec- 
tion of  the  trope,  is  explained  by  Theodoret,  roviion  rov  doirat.  -cilog 
anaanig  ralg  Tr^oqpjjTitat?,, 

This  explanation  of  sealing,  by  bringing  to  an  end,  is,  however, 
untenable.  It  is  true,  that  this  import  of  Cnn,  arising  from  the 
custom  of  putting  a  seal  at  the  end  of  a  letter  or  writing,  is  very 
frequently  met  with  in  the  Arabic.  They  say,  ^  ;Jxjf  j^Ai^ 
*UOf  *AC>-,  oVxSLif  j%A2».;  comp.  a  rich  collection  of  exam- 
ples by  Franc.  Tspregi,  Dissert,  de  Authmtia  Sdeciiorum  Kt/iibim, 
in  Oelrich's  Collect.  Opnsc.  Phil.  Tluol.  II.  p.  153  sq.  In  Hebrew, 
however,  it  is  never  found.  And  the  only  passage  cited  in  its  favor, 
Ezck.  28  :  12.,  where  r\"'J^rj  Dnin  is  explained  by  perficiens,  ahsol- 
vens  pulchritudinem,  has  been  falsely  interpreted.  rcJDn  signifies, 
according  to  43 :  10.,  ground-plot,  model.  Therefore  n'J:?n  Dnin, 
a  sealer  of  the  ground-plot ;  one  who  has  a  right  to  lay  aside  the 
idea  of  it,  because  he  himself  perfectly  represents  it.  Entirely  cor- 
responding with  which  is  the  following,  where  the  king  of  Tyre  is 
called  "  full  of  wisdom,  and^/ijs/jcc/ of  beauty."  The  figurative  use  of 
Onn  in  Hebrew,  is  exclusively  taken  from  the  custom  lo  seal  things 
for  greater  security,  which  a  man  has  enclosed,  or  laid  aside.  Thus 
Job  37  :  7  :  "  God  seals  the  hand  of  man  ;  he  shuts  it  up,  so  that  it 
cannot  move."  Job  9:7:  '■'■  He  seals  the  stars,  shuts  them  up,  so 
that  they  cannot  give  light."  Jer.  32:  11,  14,  a  sealed,  and  an 
open  book,  are  contrasted  with  each  other.  In  like  manner.  Is.  29  : 
11,  Cant.  4:  12,  a  sealed  fountain  with  an  open  one.  In  the  book 
before  us,  we  find  the  outward  action,  chap.  6:  18,  which  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  figurative  representation,  where  the  king  seals  the 
den  into  which  Daniel  had  been  thrown  ;  and  the  figurative  repre- 
sentation itself,  chap,  8  :  26,  12  :  4,  where  the  prophecies  of  Daniel, 
on  account  of  their  obscurity,  are  designated  as  sealed  until  the  time 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  24.  307 

of  the  fulfilment,  as  Apoc.  22  :  10.  (comp.  Beitrdge,  I.  p.  215.)  Just 
as  here  vh2,  to  shut  up,  precedes  Dnn,  so  do,  chap.  12  :  4  ("  Shut 
up  tlie  words,  and  seal  the  book  "),  DHD,  and,  Deut.  32:  34  ("  Is  it 
not  concealed  with  me,  sealed  up  in  my  treasure?").  Dp?.  Sin, 
therefore,  is  here  described  as  sealed,  because  it  was  to  be  entirely 
removed  from  the  sight  of  God,  entirely  put  aside. 

For  DnnS  we  have  the  marginal  reading,  the  vowels  of  which 
stand  under  the  reading  of  the  text,  Dnn'?,  as  Infin.  in  Iliph.  from 
Don,  to  be  completed.  It  owes  its  origin,  most  probably,  only  to  the 
rejection  of  the  trope  in  t!ie  ancient  translations,  which,  being  misun- 
derstood, the  traces  of  another  reading  were  supposed  to  exist.  'J'he 
assumption  of  this  reading  was  the  more  easy,  since  the  form  D.nn^ 
occurs  also  chap.  8  :  23,  and  indeed  of  the  completion  of  sin  and 
apostasy,  which,  for  the  reasons  already  given,  there  was  a  willing- 
ness to  find  in  the  passage  before  us.  It  maintained  its  usurped 
place  by  the  help  of  the  likewise  illegitimate  xbD^,  which  again,  in 
its  turn,  was  aided  by  the  former.  It  is  true,  Hitzig  asserts  {Stud.  u. 
Crit.  Jahrg.  1832.  I.  p.  176.)  in  its  favor,  that  the  circumstance, 
that  DnnS  follows,  makes  the  Kethib  suspicious.  But  this  ground 
is  converted  into  the  opposite,  when  it  is  considered  that  the  fre- 
quent repetition  of  the  same  words,  belongs  to  the  characteristic  pe- 
culiarities of  Daniel.  Proofs  in  abundance  are  furnished,  e.  g.  by 
chap.  11.  They  may,  indeed,  be  drawn  from  the  shorter  portion  be- 
fore us.  Thus  the  roots  ^nn  and  DO'ii'  occur  in  it  three  times.  — 
But  even  if  this  marginal  reading,  which  thus  wants  all  support, 
should  be  taken  for  the  original  one;  still,  we  are  not,  even  then, 
compelled  to  attribute  to  the  words  a  threatening  sense.  "  To  finish 
sin,"  can  mean,  "  to  fill  up  its  measure  ";  it  can  also  just  as  well  mean, 
"to  make  an  end  of  it,  by  forgiveness,"  corresponding  to  the  expres- 
sion elsewhere  used,  "  to  blot  out  sin,"  nnn.  In  this  sense  Dan  occurs 
of  sin,  e.  g.  Lam.  4  :  22  :  "  Thy  transgression  is  blotted  out,  "jJiy-Dn, 
thou  daughter  of  Zion.  —  But  thy  transgression,  thou  daughter  of 
Edom,  he  will  visit." 

Instead  of  the  plur.  nixtsn,  the  sing,  nxan  is  found  in  not  a  few 
manuscripts  and  editions^  in  Kennicott  and  De  Rossi.  But  we  are 
surely  not  justified,  with  Bertholdt,  in  giving  this  reading  the  prefer- 
ence to  that  in  the  text.  It  probably  owes  its  origin  merely  to  the 
effort  to  make  the  word  conform  to  V^j^  and  |ijr.  The  sing.  V^^ 
stands  also  elsewhere  along  with  the  plur.  nixtan,  comp.  e.  g.  Mic.  1  : 
5,  Sx^if:  n"'3  nixanD^  nxi-SD  i'^^:  >>»*??,  which  is  explained  by  the 


308  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

circumstance,  that  I^K*?,  apostasy,  rebellion,  is  more  of  a  collective^ 
while  naan  designates  rather  the  particular  manifestation  of  sin. 

Even  if  the  reading  of  the  text  in  both  members  is  justly  regarded 
as  the  true  one,  there  would  be  nothing,  so  far  as  the  words  are  con- 
cerned, against  understanding  the  passage  in  a  bad  sense.  We 
might  regard  sin  as  shut  up  and  sealed,  by  the  punishment  and  ex- 
tirpation of  the  sinners,  just  as  well  as  by  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  as 
Is.  4:4,  "  By  the  destructive  divine  punishment,  the  filth  of  the 
daughter  of  Zion  is  washed  away,  and  the  blood  of  Jerusalem  is  re- 
moved from  the  midst  of  her."  That  this  interpretation  is  neverthe- 
less untenable,  and  that  only  a  divine  blessing  is  intended,  the  shut- 
ting up  and  sealing  of  sin  by  forgiveness,  appears  from  the  following 
reasons.  1.  In  the  second  part  of  the  verse,  a  threefold  positive  good 
is  mentioned,  which  the  Lord  at  the  end  of  70  years  will  impart  to 
his  church.  If  we  take  the  first  two  members  in  a  good  sense,  the 
removal  of  a  threefold  evil  corresponds  to  this  imparting  of  a  threefold 
good  in  the  first  part.  This  relation  of  the  two  halves,  having  each 
three  members,  to  one  another,  must,  however,  be  the  more  assumed, 
tgince  only  then  would  Dnn  be  found  in  both  halves  in  the  second 
member.  With  sin,  the  prophecies  also  are  sealed,  because  that 
which  they  predicted  as  future,  as  the  chief  mark  of  the  Messianic 
time,  the  doing  away  of  sin,  has  now  taken  place.  This  accurate 
correspondence  of  the  twofold  Dnn,  serves  also  to  protect  the  first 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  marginal  readings.  2.  There  can 
be  no  doubt,  but  as  the  threefold  designations  of  sin,  which  are  else- 
where combined,  comp.  Exod.  34  :  7,  above  v.  5,  must  not  be  sepa- 
rated from  one  another  :  so  neither  must  the  threefold  designation  of 
that  which  is  to  be  done  in  reference  to  sin,  the  shutting  up,  sealing, 
covering,  especially  as  all  three  expressions  are  grounded  on  the 
same  figurative  representation  of  its  removal  out  of  sight.  If,  there- 
fore, it  can  be  proved  of  one  of  these  expressions,  that  it  can  stand 
only  in  a  good  sense,  this  proof  serves  also  for  the  other  two.  This, 
now,  is  perfectly  the  case  with  respect  to  |U'  "1.33.  This  frequent 
expression  never  designates  any  thing  else  than  the  forgiveness  of 
sin,  the  covering  of  sin  by  the  veil  of  mercy,  so  that  the  eye  of  the 
angry  Judge  cannot  find  it.  3.  The  prediction  in  the  first  three 
members  stands  in  a  close  relation  to  the  manifold  confession  of  sin 
in  v.  5.,  and  the  prayer  for  forgiveness  connected  therewith.  On  ac- 
count of  this  relation,  even  if  the  third  member  were  equally  ambigu- 
ous, as  the  first  two,  we  should  prefer  to  understand  it  in  a  good 


INTERPRETATION  -  V.  ii4.  309 

sense,  because  it  is  not  probable,  that  the  angel  would  have  made 
such  haste  (comp,  22.),  in  order  to  announce  to  Daniel,  directly  the 
opposite  of  that  for  which  he  had  prayed.  Only  through  this  predic- 
tion of  prosperity,  which  preceded,  did  the  announcement  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  city  and  temple  lose  its  terrors.  It  now  appeared  as 
running  parallel  with  the  greatest  blessings  towards  the  pious  mem- 
bers of  the  Theociacy,  and,  in  so  far  as  it  put  an  end  to  their  present 
mingling  with  the  ungodly,  even  as  a  gracious  benefit. 

'^  And  to  cover  transgression.'^ 

We  adhere,  in  the  translation,  to  the  ground  meaning  of  the  verb 
ns  J.  That  regard  is  had  to  this,  even  when  it  is  used  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  appears  from  the  usual  construction  with  ^V,  and  with 
nj^5,  and  indeed  on  account  of  the  plain  reference  of  the  figurative 
representation  in  this  member,  to  that  in  the  two  foregoing. 

Several  interpreters  find  a  climax  in  the  expressions  concerning 
the  forgiveness  of  sin,  in  the  three  members ;  but  it  is  far  more  cor- 
rect to  assume,  with  Geier,  {'Hot  hie  accumulantur  vocabula,  ut  tota 
peccatorum  humani  generis  colluvies  eo  melius  comprehendereiur,")  a 
mere  awad^Qoia^og,  as  is  found  also  e.  g.  Exod.  34:  7,  Levit.  16: 
21.  A  climax  would  require  that  the  strongest  designation  of  sin 
should  stand  last.  This,  however,  if  the  import  of  words  is  accu- 
rately considered,  is  precisely  that  which  stands  first,  i';i'£).  It  de- 
signates sin  according  to  its  worst  character  ;  as  apostasy  from  God, 
and  rebellion  against  him,  and  e.  g.  Job  34 :  37,  "  he  adds  h];_ 
])t£i  inx^n,  to  sin,  transgression,"  is  contrasted  with  nxtan,  as  the 
heavier  with  the  lighter.  The  prediction  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin, 
differs,  therefore,  in  this  relation  from  the  confession  of  sin,  v.  5, 
where  a  climax  is  actually  found.  The  word  Ull^p  entirely  corre- 
sponding with  i>"w!/3,  which  here  first  occurs,  there  comes  after  UXDn 
^y)].l\.  Even  a  progress  from  the  greater  to  the  less  cannot  here  be 
assumed,  since  otherwise  mNtan,  as  designating  sin  according  to  its 
lightest  character,  as  a  failure,  must  occupy  the  third  place  instead 
of  the  second. 


310  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 


"And  to  bring  everlasting  righteousness." 

Several  interpreters,  as  Dathe,  here  take  pnv  precisely  as  synony- 
mous with  prosperity.  But  we  have  already  (Vol.  I.  p.  411)  shown, 
that  this  idiom,  which  some  have  attempted  to  establish,  particularly 
from  the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  is  not  there  found  ;  comp.  also  Klein- 
ert,  Isaiah,  I.  p.  256.  Righteousness,  where  it  appears  not  as  an  in- 
herent quality,  but  as  a  gift  of  God,  always  designates  the  same  thing 
on  the  positive  side,  as  forgiveness  of  sin  on  the  negative  ;  the  latter 
implies  that  God,  according  to  his  free  mercy,  will  regard  men  no 
longer  as  sinners ;  the  former,  that  he  will  regard  them  as  righteous. 
Hence,  it  necessarily  follows,  that  he  will  also  treat  them  as  such, 
and,  consequently,  righteousness  and  prosperity  are  often  combined 
with  one  another,  though  the  former  does  not  lay  aside  its  proper 
sense.  —  Righteousness,  as  a  gift  of  God,  (comp.  Ps.  85  :  11  -  14, 
where  "righteousness  looks  down  from  heaven,  and  goes  before  God, 
who  draws  near  to  his  people,")  forms  a  constant  characteristic  mark 
of  the  Messianic  times.  According  to  Jer.  33  :  16,  Jerusalem,  at 
the  time  of  the  Messiah,  shall  be  called  "  the  Lord  our  righteous- 
ness" ;  according  to  23  :  6,  the  Messiah  himself  will  bear  this  name. 
According  to  Mai.  3  :  20,  the  Sun  of  righteousness  will  then  arise 
upon  those  who  fear  God,  i.  e.  righteousness  that  beams  forth  like  a 
sun,  and  healing  is  under  its  wings.  As  "  terebinths  of  righteousness" 
does  Isaiah  (61  :  3)  designate  the  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in 
his  time.  The  procuring  cause  of  this  righteousness  we  learn  from 
Is.  53  :  11,  according  to  which,  the  servant  of  God,  the  righteous  one, 
shall  make  many  righteous.  —  This  righteousness  is  here  called 
everlasting,  on  account  of  its  origin  from  the  eternal  counsels  of  the 
everlasting  God,  as  well  as  on  account  of  its  eternal  duration,  in  con- 
trast with  the  transient  gifts  of  righteousness  and  grace  under  the 
old  covenant,  and  with  all  that  is  create-d  and  mutable.  This  con- 
trast is  found,  also,  in  several  passages  of  Isaiah,  where  the  eternity 
of  the  righteousness  and  prosperity  of  the  Messianic  time,  is  declared 
in  the  most  emphatic  manner.  Thus  e.  g.  chap.  51  :  6-8:  "The 
heavens  will  pass  away  like  smoke,  the  earth  grow  old  like  a  gar- 
ment, and  its  inhabitants  die  like  gnats  ;  but  my  salvation  shall  be 
for  ever,  and  my  righteousness  shall  not  be  destroyed,  —  my  righteous- 
ness shall  endure  for  ever,  and  my  salvation  through  all  generations." 
In  like  manner,  45: 17,  "Israel  will  be  endowed  by  the  Lord  with  ever- 


INTERPRETATION  —  V.  -24.  311 

lasting  prosperity,  D"'nSi;;  n^r^/n,  ye  shall  not  bo  ashamed  ;  or  brought 
to  confusion  in  all  eternity." 

Our  understanding  of  the  words  is  found,  after  the  example  of  the 
ancient  translators,  (The  Seventy,  xal  doSiivm  dmatoavvijv  alMvtov. 
Theodoret,  xal  tov  uyaytlv  dixaio(jvvr}v  nmviov.  Vulg.,  "  et  adc/uca- 
turjuatitia  sempiterna."  Syr.,  "  quce  ab  (Eterno  est,")  in  the  older  in- 
terpreters, almost  without  exception,  only  that  some,  as  the  R.  Bacha- 
rias  in  Breschit  Kabbah  on  Gen.  14  :  18,  by  "  everlasting  righteous- 
ness," understand  the  person  of  the  Messiah  ;  the  same  mistake  which 
also  occurs  with  reference  to  the  "  Sun  of  righteousness,"  Mai.  1.  c, 
more,  however,  affecting  the  letter  than  the  spirit,  as  Christ  is  he,  in 
whom  the  treasure  of  the  righteousness  of  the  New  Testament  is 
preserved.  Essentially  different  from  that  which  has  been  given,  is 
an  explanation,  which  several  recent  critics,  after  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
have  advanced,  "  the  ancient  righteousness,  the  innocence  of  former 
and  better  times."  Against  this,  are  the  following  objections.  1.  All, 
the  reference  to  the  extirpation  and  expiation  of  sin  predicted  in  the 
foregoing  context ;  the  connexion  with  the  sealing  of  the  visions  and 
prophets,  which,  as  we  have  already  shown,  p.  308,  especially  relates 
to  the  forgiveness  of  sin  predicted  by  them ;  the  collocation  with 
blessings,  plainly  to  be  sent  down  from  God  ;  the  verb  X'^nS ;  the 
comparison  of  the  parallel  passages  of  Isaiah  ;  show  that  the  discourse 
is  here  of  righteousness,  not  as  a  subjective  attribute,  morum  probi- 
tas,  as  also  Scl.oll  (Comment,  de  70  Hcb.  Dan.  Fft.  1829)  explains, 
but  as  a  giit  of  God  ;  just  as  pl'H  occurs,  besides  in  the  passages  cited, 
PvS.  132  : 9,  "  may  thy  priests  be  clothed  with  righteousness,"  by  thee, 
O  God,  endowed  with  the  garment  of  righteousness,  "  and  thy  saints 
rejoice,"  comp.  v.  16.  2.  The  eternity  of  the  Messianic  kingdom, 
and  its  blessings,  in  the  parallel  passages  of  Daniel,  where  he  is  spo- 
ken of,  are,  in  precisely  the  same  way,  rendered  especially  prominent  ; 
comp.  2  :  44,  7  :  18,  27.  3.  It  is  false,  that  dSi;?  was  originally  an 
indefinite  designation  of  any  longer  duration,  and  that  it  commonly 
has  this  meaning,  not  that  o^ eternity.  In  favor  of  such  an  assump- 
tion, it  cannot  be  alleged,  that  the  metaphysical  conception  of  eter- 
nity is  foreign  to  the  simplicity  of  antiquity,  and  belongs  to  a  later 
period  of  intellectual  improvement.  Antiquity  had  previously  ob- 
tained views  by  immediate  intuition,  to  which  the  later  philosophers 
attained  only  by  a  tedious  abstraction.  In  the  very  ancient  Zend 
religion,  "  time  without  time,"  eternity,  stands  in  the  front  of  the 
whole  system  ;  comp.  Rhode,  p.  186  :   "  The  original  being  is  called 


312  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

Zervane  Akerene,  '  uncreated  time,'  only  in  reference  to  its  dura- 
tion, and  by  way  of  distinction  from  all  other  beings,  which  were 
created.  Altogether  in  like  manner  is  this  original  being,  in  the  Schas- 
ter  of  Brama,  called  only  '  the  eternal,  he,  who  is  without  beginning'.  " 
If,  then,  the  idea  of  eternity,  as  existing  from  the  beginning  among 
th-vise  nations,  cannot  be  denied,  how  much  less  can  it  be  considered 
as  unknown  to  a  people  enjoying  a  revelation,  among  whom  the  germ 
of  the  obscure  anticipations  of  the  heart  among  other  people  was  de- 
veloped by  higher  communications?  In  favor  of  this,  as  the  ground 
meaning  of  oSiir,  is  even  the  etymology  of  the  word.  dSij',  a  noun 
derived  from  the  participial  form  of  the  verb  dSi'  (comp.  Ewald,  p. 
237),  designates  properly  the  concealed,  the  obscure.  Eternity  is  an 
abyss,  before  which  perception  grows  giddy  ;  it,  the  infinite,  is  in- 
comprehensible by  the  finite  understanding ;  only  in  figure  can  a 
man  represent  it ;  concealed  is  its  beginning,  its  progress,  its  end. 
"  Just  as,  in  a  round  ball,  no  beginning,  no  end  is  found  ;  so  also,  O 
eternity,  in  thee,  we  behold  neither  entrance  nor  egress."  "  Thou 
art  a  ring,  infinitely  broad  ;  thy  centre  is  always,  thy  round  circum- 
ference never,  because  it  knows  no  end."  "  A  little  bird  might  well 
carry  away  the  sand  and  stone  of  all  the  mountains,  if  he  only  came 
every  thousand  years  ;  thou,  eternity,  remainest  always."  "  With 
every  moment  which  has  already  past,  I  compare  many  thousand 
thousand  years  ;  nothing  compares  itself  with  eternity."  ■ —  Further, 
it  cannot  be  denied,  that  dSi^  in  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament, 
from  the  most  ancient  times,  occurs  in  the  sense  of  eternity,  accord- 
ing to  its  full  import,  comp.  e.  g.  Gen.  3  :  22,  21 :  33  ;  Ps.  90  :  2  : 
"  Before  the  mountains  were  brought  forth,  or  ever  thou  hadst  formed 
the  earth  and  the  world,  from  everlasting  to  everlasting,  thou  art,  O 
God."  The  1  is  intensive,  Ps.  103  :  17,  Is.  51 :  6-8,  where  eternity 
is  expressly  contrasted  with  all  time,  aiid  every  thing  that  exists  in  it; 
40:  28,  03  :  16.  On  the  contrary,  the  meaning  of  an  indefinite  du- 
ration in  those  passages  where,  at  the  first  view,  it  seems  to  occur, 
completely  disappears  on  a  closer  examination.  These  passages  fall 
under  the  following  classes,  a.  In  several,  the  supposition  of  this 
meaning  rests  on  an  entirely  erroneous  interpretation.  This  is  par- 
ticularly the  case  in  reference  to  obi;^  in  one  whole  class  of  Psalms, 
which,  as  Ps.  18,  21,  61,  89,  celebrating  the  mercies  of  God,  not 
indeed,  as  rs  now  for  the  most  part  assumed,  towards  one  particular 
individual,  but  towards  the  whole  royal  stock  of  David  personified  as 
an  individual,  are  an  expression  of  the  emotions  called  forth  in  the 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  24.  313 

holy  songster?,  by  the  word  of  God,  2  Sam.  chap.  7,  referring,  in 
like  manner,  to  the  whole  royal  house  of  David.  They  difTer  from 
the  proper  Messianic  Psalms,  Ps.  2,  45,  72,  110,  only  in  this  re- 
spect: the  latter  exclusively  bring  forward  the  person,  in  whom  the 
prosperity  promised  to  the  house  of  David  should  most  completely 
appear;  while  the  former,  adhering  more  immediately  to  the  ground- 
prophecy,  embrace  the  whole  of  the  prosperity,  including  its  high- 
est completion.  That  in  these  Psalms  D^;'^.  may  be  taken  in  its 
full  sense,  who  can  deny,  without  making  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
temporary  and  transient ;  and  that  it  must  be  so  taken,  we  have  al- 
ready shown,  Vol.  I.  p.  102.  The  same  may  be  said  of  passages,  as 
Jer.  6  :  16, 18  :  15,  where  the  doctrine  of  godliness  is  designated  as  the 
everlasting  way,  ni^'HJ  or  "''^''^ry,  dSi';',  not  indeed  merely  as  old, 
in  antithesis  with  the  new  doctrine  of  the  false  prophets,  bat  as  eter- 
nal, like  its  eternal  author,  in  whom  it  existed  before  it  was  revealed 
in  time,  as  appears  also  from  a  comparison  of  Ps.  139:  24,  "  Lead 
me  in  the  way  everlasting."  —  Truth  is  earlier  than  falsehood,  be^- 
cause  God  is  earlier  than  man,  and  the  idols,  man's  workmanship. 
Nearly  the  same  is  true  in  reference  to  the  passage  in  Job  22  :  15  : 
"  Hast  thou  indeed  considered  the  everlasting  way,  which  evil-doers 
tread?  "  The  punishment  of  the  ungodly  is  represented  as  everlast-  " 
ing,  because,  being  grounded  in  the  nature  of  the  everlasting  God,  it 
existed  in  substance  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  became 
manifest  as  soon  as  it  had  an  object.  The  same  is  true  of  Mic.  5  :  1, 
as  we  shall  show  on  the  passage  ;  also  Exod.  31  :  16,  "  The  observance 
of  the  sabbath  is  for  Israel  XjI^]!  rin?  ;  v.  17,  "  Between  me  and  the 
Israelites  this  is  a  sign  dSi;»S"  The  command  respecting  the  cele- 
bration of  the  sabbath  is  so  surely  not  done  away  by  Christ,  as  he 
himself  has  declared,  that  he  came  not  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  ful- 
fil, and  no  jot  or  tittle  of  the  law  shall  fail.  If  that  which  was  acci- 
dental and  outward  has  ceased  under  the  New  Testament,  the  ker- 
nel and  substance  still  endure ;  nay,  the  fulfilment  of  the  command- 
ment in  its  whole  compass  has  now  first  become  possible.  —  h.  In 
other  passages,  the  assumption  of  the  meaning,  "  an  indefinite  du- 
ration," arises  from  not  distinguishing  between  eternity  objectively, 
and  subjectively,  considered.  Subjectively,  in  conception,  every  pe- 
riod of  time  can  appear  as  an  eternity,  which,  objectively,  is  in  itself 
by  no  means  such,  and  which  the  cool,  reflecting  understanding  is 
far  from  regarding  as  such.  This  eternity,  to  be  measured  accord- 
ing to  the  standard  of  human  perception,  is  found  in  all  languages  ; 
VOL.  II.  40 


314  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

and  if  any  one,  confounding  perception  or  feeling,  and  reality,  e.  g. 
if  a  man,  who  has  not  seen  his  friend  for  several  years,  says  to  him, 
"  We  have  been  separated  from  each  other  a  whole  eternity,"  should 
choose  to  assert,  that  eternity  actually  signifies  a  period  of  some  years, 
he  would  make  himself  ridiculous.  Of  this  class  of  passages  are  such, 
e.g.,  as  Is.  42:  14  :  oSi^n  'n''"^nn,  "I  have  now  already  been  silent 
a  whole  eternity  ;  "   63  :  J9,  "  We  are  those  over  whom  thou  hast  not 
reigned  from  eternity."     The  time  of  the  exile,  though  short  in  itself, 
appears  to  the  suffering  people  to  be  an  eternity.     Ps.  77,  (a  Psalm  of 
deep  lamentation  over  past  prosperity,)  "  I  think  of  the  days  of  anti- 
quity, the  everlasting  years,"   the  years,  which   have   already   been 
past,  an  eternity.     Ps.  73  :  11,  12,   "  And  they  say,  How  does  God 
know  ;  how  should  knowledge  be  with  the  Most  High  ?     See,  these 
are  the  ungodly,  and  the  eternally  secure,  oSi^'  \fit,  increase  their 
strength."     To  the  pious,  the  long  prosperity  of  the  ungodly  appears 
as  a  whole  eternity.    Ps.  143  :  3,    Lara.  3:6,  —  c.  The  case  is  analo- 
gous, when  dSi;'  occurs  hypci-holically  of  things  to  which,  if  the  sub- 
ject alone  is  regarded,  only  the  predicate  of  a  long  duration  is  suited. 
To  infer  from  these  passages,  that   0*71;;   also  could  mean  a  limited 
period,  were  just  as  absurd,  as  if  from  the  expression,  "  walled  up 
to  heaven,"  Deut.  1 :  28,  it  should  be  concluded,  that  "  up  to  heaven  " 
designated,  among  the  Hebrews,  a  height  of  about  one  hundred  feet. 
Examples  are,  Is.  63  :  9,  "  He  raised  them  up  and  bore  them  (Israel) 
0/iJ*  ""fyr^^,  throughout    a    whole   long    eternity."     The    unlimited 
thankfulness   removes  the  limits  of  time  frotn  the  blessing,  and  thus 
more  effectually  shames  the  ingratitude,  which,  in  order  to  free  itself 
from  the  burdensome  duty  of  thankfulness,  diminishes  the  favors  of  a 
benefactor.     Mai.  3:4,    "  And    pleasant  to  him  is  the  offering  of 
Judah,  as  throughout  the  days  of  eternity,"  dSij;  'po,  as  it  has  been 
pleasant  to  him  throughout  a  whole  eternity.     Not,  which  is  unphi- 
lological,  "  as  of  old,"  so  that  'D'^  would  signify,  "  as  in  the  days." 
The  hyperbole  here  has  respect  to  weakness  of  faith,  to  which   the 
comparatively  short  time  of  the  withdrawal   of  the  divine  mercy  ap- 
pears as  an  eternity.     That  the  time  of  mercy  relates  to  that  of  wrath 
in  times  past,  as  eternity  to  a  limited   period,  must  strengthen   confi- 
dence in  this  mercy,  and  hope  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise.     Mic. 
7:  14,    "  They  feed    again   upon   Basan    and    Gilead,   dSii'  'i?'?." 
Amos  9:  11,  "I  build  the  tabernacle   of  David,  as  throughout  the 
days  of  eternity,"  "  as  I  have  built  it  throughout  a  whole  eternity." 
Is.  51 :  9.  Hab,  3:6,"  Before  the  Lord  the  ever-enduring  mountains 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  24.  315 

were  scattered,  the  everlasting  hills  were  made  low."  The  greater 
the  power  of  the  vanquished,  the  more  illustrious  the  conqueror. 
The  hyperbolic  designation  of  the  duration,  and  of  course,  the  stead- 
fastness of  the  mountains,  magnifies  the  power  of  him  before  whom 
they  are  scattered  like  chaff.  Prov.  22 :  28,  "  Remove  not  the  ever- 
lasting limits."  The  micient  limits  are  hyperbolically  designated  as 
eternal,  in  order  to  awaken  a  stronger  sacred  dread  at  their  removal. 
Is.  61 :  12,  "  And  they  build  the  everlasting  wastes"  ;  ancient  wastes 
are  designated  as  eternal,  to  express  the  thought,  that  the  time  will 
be  happier  than  any  which  has  preceded,  and  that  what  had  lain 
through  a  whole  eternity  in  ruins,  would  be  rebuilt ;  comp.  still  Deut. 
32  :  7,  Gen.  6 :  4,  Jos.  24  :  2,  Jer.  5:13,  Is.  44  :  7,  Eccles.  1 :  10. 
—  d.  Wishes  do  not  always  bind  themselves  to  what  is  possible,  es- 
pecially when  it  is  the  object  of  him  who  wishes,  to  give  a  lively  rep- 
resentation of  his  feelings  to  him  to  whom  his  wishes  refer.  Human 
expectations  and  hopes,  not  grounded  on  the  word  of  God,  must  not  be 
confounded  with  divine  promises,  with  which  the  result  always  perfectly 
corresponds.  For  example,  the  salutations  addressed  to  kings,  "  The 
king  live  for  ever,"  1  Kings  1 :  31,  Dan.  2  :  4,  5,  10,  C  :  22,  Neh, 
2:3;  the  use  of  which  among  the  Persians,  also,  is  evident  from 
iElian.,  v.  Hist.  1.  31.  (jjiwdiv  ^'Igia^tg^t],  8i  alohog  ^aadsvoig,)  comp. 
Brissonius,  1.  1.  p.  16,  which  should  have  been  adduced  in  the 
Bciirdgen,  among  the  proofs  of  the  accurate  knowledge  of  the  Chal- 
dee-Persian  manners  in  the  book  of  Daniel.  Josh.  4:7,  "  The  stones 
shall  be  memorials  for  the  children  of  Israel,  ^\iV  ^i'."  Job  19  : 
24,  1  Kings  8  :  13,  where  Solomon  says,  "  I  have  built  thee  a 
house,  a  place  for  thy  dwelling,  D'nSi;'."  Solomon  expected,  that 
the  temple  built  by  him  would  be,  to  all  eternity,  the  central  point  of 
the  worship  of  the  true  God.  —  c.  "Eternally"  not  unfrequently 
stands  where  a  thing,  all  other  causes  of  destruction  being  left  out 
of  view,  is  described  only  in  respect  to  one  in  particular,  as  not  liable 
to  perish.  That  the  word  here  retains  its  full  meaning,  is  manifest. 
Eternity  is  predicted  only  in  a  certain  relation.  As  examples,  we 
cite  the  following  passages.  Gen.  13:  15,  "This  whole  land  will 
I  give  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  for  ever."  This  promise  gave  the  cove- 
nant people  the  certain  assurance,  that  the  possession  of  the  land  of 
Canaan  in  respect  to  the  giver,  should  not  be  temporary.  But  to 
conclude  from  this,  that  the  possession  would  be  inalienable  by  all 
other  causes,  would  have  been  as  hasty,  as  when  one  should  infer 
from  Rom.  8,  the  impossibility  that  one,  who  had  been  born  again, 


316  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

could  fall  from  grace.  Ps.  104  :  5,  6,  "  He  has  established  the  earth 
on  its  foundations,  it  will  not  be  re  roved  for  ever  and  ever,"  stands 
only  in  apparent  contradiction  to  Ps.  102  :  26,  27,  "  Thou  hast  es- 
tablished the  earth,  and  the  heaven  is  the  work  of  thy  hands.  They 
shall  cease,  and  thou  remainest."  For  in  the  first  passage,  the  om- 
nipotence of  God  is  proved  from  the  fact,  that  no  cause  besides  him 
could  move  the  earth,  which  he  sustains;  in  the  second,  from  the 
fact,  that  the  most  steadfast  of  created  things  should  be  destroyed  by 
him,  while  he  remains  unchangeably  the  same.  1  Sam.  1  :  22,  Han- 
nah says,  "  she  would  bring  her  ton  before  God,  that  he  may  dwell 
there  dSi;?  ni%"  on  which  Gousset  has  already  well  remarked, 
"  quod  si  deus  et  ejus  jussu  Samuel  aliter  statuant,  per  ipsam  saltern 
nan  staturum,  quia  id  fiat,  uti  ipsa  enuntiat."  Eccles.  1:4,  "  Gen- 
erations come,  generations  go,  and  the  earth  stands  cSi  S  ;  "  the  earth 
is  represented  only  as  not  subject  to  all  those  causes  of  decay,  which 
destroy  all  that  is  found  upon  it.  Deut.  15  :  17,  "  And  he  shall  be  to 
thee  for  an  everlasting  servant,  uhiv  "t.pi'b  ;  the  year  of  Jubilee  shall, 
to  ajl  eternity,  effect  for  thee  no  change  in  his  relation  to  thee,"  In 
like  manner  Lev.  25 :  46,  where  servants  out  of  foreign  nations  may 
be  held  as  servants ybr  ever,  in  contradiction  to  v.  39-42,  where  an 
Israelitish  servant  must  be  emancipated  in  the  year  of  Jubilee.  2 
Kings  5 :  27,  "  The  leprosy  of  Naaman  shall  cleave  to  thee  and  to 
thy  seed  th)]h.'"  No  regard  is  here  paid  to  a  future  extinction  of 
the  race  of  Gehazi.  Should  this  continue  eternally  on  the  earth,  it- 
self eternal,  so  also  would  the  punishment  of  the  leprosy  be  eternal. 
Ps.  30:  13,  "  Lord,  my  God,  to  eternity  will  I  praise  thee."  The 
Psalmist  speaks  only  of  what  he  will  do  in  accordance  with  the  in- 
most desire  of  his  soul ;  if  it  only  depends  upon  him,  his  praise  of 
God  shall  not  cease  through  all  eternity.  If  now  we  apply  the  result 
we  have  obtained,  to  the  passage  before  us,  it  is  evident,  that  the  ex- 
planation by  ancient  righteousness,  is  entirely  untenable.  As  'dri]} 
c,an  never  of  itself  have  the  meaning  attributed  to  it  in  this  explana- 
tion, it  can  only  be  justified,  by  showing  from  the  text  itself,  a  reason 
for  a  subjective  or  hyperbolic  understanding  of  eternity,  (comp.  under 
b.  and  c.)  No  such,  however,  is  to  be  found.  The  word  can  be  so 
understood,  only  where  emotions  and  personal  references  prevail,  as 
not  only  in  the  Psalms,  but  also  in  the  predictions  of  the  prophets,  in 
which  the  hortatory  character  predominates.  The  prophecy  before 
us,  liQwever,  is  purely  objective,  as  generally  in  Daniel,  who  was  no 


\ 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  24.  317 

prophet  by  office,  who  had  no  auditors  around  him ;  the  direct  horta- 
tory character  is  entirely  subordinate. 

Still  more  to  be  rejected  is  the  explanation  of  Bertholdt,  who  un- 
derstands by  p-]X  deliverance  from  a  religious  and  political  oppression, 
"the  ancient  freedom.''  Here,  to  equal  caprice  in  the  understand- 
ing of  dSij;  is  added  still  greater,  in  the  interpretation  of  pT^!.  All 
these  false  explanations  are  occasioned  merely  by  an  incorrect  hy- 
pothesis in  respect  to  the  reference  of  the  whole  verse.  The  natural 
and  correct  sense  was  not  suited  either  to  Michaelis  and  Jahn,  who 
refer  it  to  the  time  immediately  after  the  Babylonish  exile,  or  to  Ber- 
tholdt, who  supposes  a  reference  to  the  times  immediately  after  the 
oppressions  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. — Finally,  the  pardon  of  sin, 
and  the  gift  of  the  divine  righteousness,  in  just  the  same  manner  as 
here,  correspond  in  Ps.  69  :  28,  "  Impute  to  them  their  sins,  and 
let  them  not  receive  a  part  in  thy  righteousness." 

''And  to  seal  up  vision  and  prophet." 

The  interpreters  mostly  suppose,  that  to  seal  up,  here,  is  as  much 
as  to  fulfil,  confirm,  ratify,  with  reference  to  the  custom  of  confirming 
the  contents  of  a  writing,  by  affixing  to  it  a  seal.  The  existence  of 
this  custom  among  the  Hebrews  is  sup.posed  to  be  evident  from  I 
Kings  21  :  8,  Jer.  32  :  10,  11,  44.  They  deduce  as  parallel,  passa- 
ges like  Acts  3  :  18,  "  God  has  fulfilled,  tJihjQoiasv,  what  he  had  be- 
fore made  known  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets ;  "  Matt.  5  :  17. 
This  import  of  sealing  is  found,  indeed,  in  Syriac,  (comp.  e.  g. 
Ephraem  Syrus,  Hijmn.  80.  ado.  Scrutat.  Opp.  III.  p.  149,)  and 
in  the  New  Testament,  John  6  :  27.  But  it  is  entirely  foreign  to  the 
Hebrew.  We  have  already  seen  that  this  knows  no  other  metaphori- 
cal use  of  Dnn,  than  that  taken  from  the  custom  of  sealing  things 
which  are  laid  aside,  and  concealed.  This  meaning  can  the  less  be 
relinquished  here,  since  it  is,  in  general,  unnatural  to  assume,  that 
Dnn  occurs  in  a  single  verse  in  different  senses ;  'and  the  more  so, 
since  the  sealing  up  of  vision  and  prophect,  even  by  position,  (comp. 
p.  308,)  manifestly  refers  to  the  sealing  up  of  the  pro{)hecy.  With 
the  sealing  up  of  sin,  the  prophecies  also  are  sealed  up,  in  which  this 
was  predicted.  As  soon  as  the  fulfilment  takes  place,  the  prophecy, 
although  in  other  respects  it  retains  its  great  importance,  reaches 
the  end  of  its  destination,  in  so  far  as  the  view  of  believers,  who 
stand  in  need  of  consolation  and  encouragement,  is  no  longer  direct- 


318  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

ed  to  it,  to  the  future  prosperity,  but  to  that  which  has  appeared ;  as 
they  no  longer  rely  on  the  word  of  the  Lord,  but  on  his  deeds,  and 
with  Philip  (John  1  :  46)  exclaim  :  ov  lygaipt  McaiJarjg  iv  tw  vofim  y.ul  ol 
nQocpi]iai,  iVQijxafisr,  'irjaovv  tov  viov  tov  Vojij»)(jp,  tov  ano  Na^agh. 
According  to  this  interpretation,  the  passage  is  entirely  parallel  with 
Matt.  11  :  13,  navng  yug  ol  ngoqjtjTai  xeu  o  rofiog  i'cog  Iwavvov  ngos- 
cpriTsvanv,  on  which  Bengel  :  "nunc  cumphturn,  qiiod  iisque  ad  Joan- 
nem  fuerat  prcedictum"  ;  and  also  2  Pet.  1  :  19  :  y.ui  i'^of^iv  (Sf^aiois- 
gov  TOV  TigocptjTiHOV  Xoyov,  o)  xu?Mi  tioiuts  ngoaixovTeg,  wg  Ai^jw  cputvovn 
iv  avx}0]goi  tottoj,  I'm?  ov  ij/jsga  dinvyaap,  y.al  qxagcpogog  uruTSi'hj  iv  raig 
xagSimg  v;uwv.  In  this  latter  place,  we  have  combined  the  sense  of 
the  two  interpretations,  the  usual  one,  and  our  own.  The  ngocpijTi- 
x6g  loyog  has,  on  the  one  side,  gained  in  certainty,  by  the  fulfilment ; 
on  the  other,  however,  as  a  ground  of  hope  and  consolation,  it  has 
been  thereby  abrogated,  as  a  man  directs  his  eye  to  a  feeble  light, 
that  can  but  poorly  and  imperfectly  scatter  the  surrounding  dark- 
ness, only  until  the  clear  day  breaks  ;  comp.  Vol.  I.  p.  241. 

The  use  of  the  sing.  (comp.  p'Trj  collect.,  Is.  1  :  1,  2  Chron.  32  : 
32,  Nah.  1:1;  Kleinert,  Ueber  die  Aechtheit  des  Jes.  p.  11.)  and  the 
omission  of  the  article,  serve  to  designate  the  object  in  its  widest 
universality.  Comp.  e.  g.  nin;  j?^w^Mn  nrpn^-i  Dnx  Ps.  36:  7,  'and 
inj  D^a^;  ^h  nbsn  V^'t  Ps.  65  :  2,  also  Dnx  Ps.  73  :  5.  This  uni- 
versality can  have  a  double  aim,  either  to  designate  the  object  as  un- 
limited, as  in  the  cited  passages  of  the  Psalms,  or  to  give  in  the  rep- 
resentation an  unlimited  extension  to  that  which  is  in  itself  confined. 
The  latter  occurs,  e.  g.,  chap.  11:  14  :  "  The  sons  of  the  transgressors 
of  the  people  will  rise  up  ]"iTn  T'Tpi'n'p,  for  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy," 
where  the  prophet  speaks  altogether  generally.  —  jnn  is  there  to  be 
taken  collectively,  —  although  he  properly  had  in  view  one  definite 
object,  his  own  prophecy.  It  was  not  here  important  that  the  event 
served  for  the  fulfilment  of  a  special  prophecy,  but  only  for  the  fulfil- 
ment of  prophecies  in  general.  For  this  latter  ground  in  favor  of  the 
universality  of  the  expression,  we  may  allege  the  remaining  charac- 
ter of  the  section,  in  which  the  article  is  often  omitted,  where,  if  the 
expression  corresponds  to  the  definiteness  of  the  subject,  it  must  nec- 
essarily stand,  comp.  e.  g.  n'"^^  v.  25.  26.  —  Bertholdt,  Jahn,  Rosen- 
miiller,  and  others  explain,  "  Until  the  declaration  of  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  is  fulfilled."  This  explanation  is,  however,  to  be  rejected, 
for  the  following  reasons.  1.  It  rests  on  the  false  explanation  of 
sealing  up,  by  confining.     That  being  correctly  explained,  their  in- 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  24.  ■♦        319 

terpretation  could  at  most  be  admissible  only  in  case  pin  stood  alone  ; 
by  the  addition  K"3Ji,  however,  it  is  refuted  ;  for  how  could  a  prophet 
be  described  as  henceforth  useless,  because  one  of  his  prophecies  had 
been  fulfilled  ?  Even  if  prn  stood  alone,  in  case  the  prophet  had  in 
view  a  special  prediction  of  Jeremiah,  the  indefiniteness  of  the  lan- 
guage would  still  be  very  unusual.  The  violation  of  the  rule,  "  The 
article  is  most  necessarily  used  where  a  thing  or  person  already  men- 
tioned is  referred  to,"  (Evvald,  p.  ;')6(J,)  could  then  only  be  assumed 
when  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  had  been  mentioned  immediately  be- 
fore, so  that  it  would  at  once  occur  to  every  reader,  and  thus  the  in- 
definiteness be  removed,  or  when  other  circumstances  in  the  dis- 
course, as  a  striking  agreement  of  the  contents  of  the  prophecy  of 
Jeremiah,  with  that  which  is  here  promised,  supplied  the  place  of  the 
article.  2.  The  abolition  of  pm  and  XOJ  can  still  happen  in  no 
other  way,  than  by  the  accomplishment  of  that  which  is  here  pre- 
dicted to  take  place  at  the  end  of  the  70  weeks,  especially  the  seal- 
ing of  sin,  to  which  the  sealing  of  vision  and  prophet  closely  relates. 
The  same  must  now  also  be  promised  in  the  prediction,  or  in  both 
the  predictions  of  Jeremiah,  to  which  the  prophet  is  supposed  to  re- 
fer. But  of  this  there  is  there  no  trace  to  be  found.  Chap.  25, 
merely  the  cessation  of  the  Babylonish  servitude  is  promised,  and 
chap.  29  is  limited  to  the  promise  of  the  restoration  and  the  merciful 
care  of  God. 

There  can  therefore  be  no  doubt  that  we  have  here  a  reference  to 
the  prediction  which  runs  through  all  the  prophetical  writings,  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sin  to  be  conferred  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah  ;  comp. 
on  Zech.  13  :  1.  When  this,  the  substance  of  the  work  of  Christ, 
has  been  accomplished,  the  prophecies  in  the  above-mentioned  rela- 
tion might  justly  be  regarded  as  abolished. 

"  And  to  anoint  a  holy  of  holies." 

The  defenders  of  the  reference  of  the  whole  verse  to  the  times 
immediately  after  the  return  from  the  exile,  as  Michaclis  and  Jahn, 
refer  these  words  to  the  consecration  of  the  temple,  rebuilt  by  Zerub- 
babel  and  Joshua,  while  those,  who  prefer  the  time  immediately  after 
the  oppressions  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  refer  them  to  the  new  con- 
secration of  the  temple,  profaned  by  the  Syrians.  In  both  cases 
riB'n  must  be  taken  in  an  imjjroper  sense  of  a  bare  consecration,  for 
we  do  not  find  during  the  first  temple,  nor  the  second,  neither  after 
its  erection  nor  its  profanation,  the  slightest  evidence  that  the  sane- 


#>  -m 


320        '  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

tuary  was  anointed,  as  was  the  case  according  to  Exod.  30:  22,&..c., 
during  the  tabernacle.  On  the  contrary,  according  to  the  uniform 
tradition  of  the  Jews,  (comp.  Lund,  1,  29,)  the  holy  oil  was  wanting 
under  the  second  temple.  In  the  case  of  the  first  temple,  the  anoint- 
ing might  have  been  omitted,  because  the  holy  vessels  of  the  taber- 
nacle, which  had  already  been  anointed,  w(  re  transferred  to  it.  In 
respect  to  the  second,  it  might  well  have  been  thought,  in  accordance 
with  the  character  of  th^t  whole  period,  that  it  would  be  better  to 
wait  for  the  restoration  of  the  old  and  most  sacred  oil,  than  to  prepare 
new.  An  objection  common  to  both  interpretations  is,  that  according 
to  them,  D'tJ^^P  U'."7p  is  understood  of  the  "holy  of  holies"  of  the  earth- 
ly temple,  which  is  never  so  called,  but,  without  any  exception,  '>l/'^T) 
D^cynpn;  comp.  2  Chron.  3  :  8,  Exod.  26  :  33,  1  Kings  G  :  16. 
0''\Lnv_  ^Ip,  on  the  contrary,  serves  always  to  designate  other  objects 
besides  the  "  holy  of  holies,"  which  in  their  kind  are  the  most  holy,  as 
the  altar  of  burnt-offerings,  and  other  vessels  in  the  sanctuary,  i;i 
comparison  with  the  court,  &c.  A  look  at  Buxtorfs  Concordance 
will  show,  that  this  distinction  has  been  constantly  observed.  It  is 
most  clearly  manifest,  Ezek.  41  :  4,  comp.  43  :  12,  45:  3.  In  the 
former  passage,  the  discourse  relates  to  that  part  of  the  new  temple, 
which  should  correspond  with  the  "  holy  of  holies"  of  the  former  tem- 
ple ;  here  D'tyiDH  t^np.  In  both  the  others,  the  prophet  designates 
the  whole  compass  of  the  mountain,  on  which  the  new  temple  should 
stand,  as  "  a  holy  of  holies,"  in  relation  to  the  former  temple,  to  which, 
with  the  exception  of  the  holy  of  holies,  only  the  predicate  of  positive 
holiness  was  suited  ;  here  C'ti'T.;^  jy^p.  The  only  passage  in  which 
Ctynp  tynp  at  first  sight  seems  to  be  used,  without  being  rendered 
definite  by  the  article,  of  the  most  holy  place  of  the  temple,  is  I 
Chron.  23:  13,  "  Aaron  with  his  sons  were  separated,  synp  Tit^'IpDV 
D'K'T.D."  But  this  must  rather  be  explained,  quidquid  sacrosanc- 
tum  erat,  as  already  Le  Clerc,  "  iit  res  sanctissimas,  sacrijiciaj  vasa 
sacra,  consecrarent." 

To  delay  longer  with  the  first  reference,  would  be  useless,  because 
its  defenders  themselves  bear  testimony  against  it,  by  the  violent 
changes  of  the  text  to  which  they  resort.  The  period  of  the  70 
weeks  of  years  can  be  proved  with  mathematical  certainty,  as  that 
which  belongs  to  the  original  text  of  the  prophet.  In  order  to  be 
convinced  of  its  correctness,  we  n-eed  only  combine  the  following 
short  periods,  into  which  the  whole  is  divided,  62  -  7  -  1.  If,  how- 
ever, this  is  established,  how  can  the  new  consecration  of  the  earthly 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  24.  321 

temple  be  predicted,  as  not  occurring  until  after  490  years  ?  We 
may  therefore  proceed  at  once  to  consider  the  grounds,  which,  be- 
sides those  already  adduced,  are  opposed  to  the  second  reference, 
1.  The  outward  consecration  of  the  outward  temple  is  unsuitable 
to  the  connexion  with  the  other  gracious  gifts  of  God,  which  are  here 
promised.  These  are  all  spiritual';  they  refer  to  a  destruction  of 
sin  ;  they  bear  a  Messianic  character.  Even  therefore  should  the 
passage  be  referred  to  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,  we  are  not  to 
think  of  the  new  consecration  of  the  outward  temple,  as  a  mere  ex- 
ternal and  human  work.  We  must  suppose  that  the  prophet,  con- 
necting together  the  end  of  the  oppression  of  religion,  and  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  intended  thereby  something  far 
greater.  2.  Were  the  new  consecration  of  the  temple  the  subject  of 
discourse,  we  do  not  see,  even  leaving  the  article  out  of  view,  why 
the  prophet  should  speak  only  of  the  "  holy  of  holies,"  instead  of  the 
whole  temple.  Bertholdt,  p.  G51,  feeling  this  difficulty,  throws  out 
the  conjecture,  that  the  whole  temple  is  here  designated  as  a  "  holy  of 
holies,"  in  the  sense  in  which  the  author  of  the  second  book  of  Mac- 
cabees (5  :  15,)  calls  it  to  niiaijg  ttJ?  yi'ig  uyidiuTOV  Uqov,  or  (41  :  31,) 
TO  fiiyiaiov  xal  liyiov  Ugof.  But  this  expedient  is  inadmissible,  be- 
cause Cty^i^  tl'lp,  although  indeed  of  itself  relative,  yet,  when  used  of 
the  temple,  in  order  to  avoid  ambiguity,  never  designates  the  whole, 
as  holier  than  all  besides  ;  but  only  the  holy  of  holies,  in  reference  to 
the  sanctuary.  An  appeal  cannot  be  made  to  the  cited  passage  of 
Ezekiel,  which  seems  to  make  an  exception.  For  there  the  dis- 
course relates  to  an  entirely  new  order  of  things;  the  whole  compass 
of  the  new  (Messianic)  temple,  is  there,  by  a  brief  comparison,  de- 
signated as  a  "  holy  of  holies,"  equal  in  dignity  to  the  former  "  holy  of 
holies."  3.  The  subject  of  discourse  cannot  here  be  a  new  consecra- 
tion of  the  old  temple  at  the  end  of  70  weeks  of  years,  because,  ac- 
cording to  v.  27,  the  same  temple  is  at  that  time  to  be  entirely  de- 
stroyed. 4.  This  supposition  is  liable  to  invincible  chronological 
difficulties,  as  the  490  years  extend  far  beyond  the  time  of  the  new 
consecration  of  the  temple.  That  the  attempts  to  set  aside  these 
difficulties,  are  entirely  unsuccessful,  we  shall  hereafter  see. 

Many  other  interpreters,  justly  rejecting  the  reference  to  the  out- 
ward temple,  explain  the  words  of  the  anointing  of  the  Messiah. 
These  adopt  a  twofold  course.  Many  translate  D'K/lp  \inb  directly 
by,  "  the  holy  of  holies,"  or  what  would  be  more  correct,  "  o  holy  of  ho- 
lies." This  interpretation  was,  in  all  probability,  adopted  by  the  Seventy 

VOL.  n:  41 


322  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

{y.a.1  svcpgdvai  uyiov  uykov)  and  Theodotion  {y.u}  tov  XQiaui  ayiov  uylcov). 
That  neither  of  them  referred  it  to  the  "  holy  of  holies  "  of  the  temple, 
is  evident,  because  this  is  constantly  designated  by  the  Greek  transla- 
tofs  by  (iyiov  rav  uylcor,  or  ju  uyia  xmv  aylwv,  or  to  ayiov  tov  uyiov, 
comp.  Tromm.  Concord,  s.  v.  That  they  regarded  it  as  masc,  ap- 
pears from  the  svcpQccvai  of  the  Seventy,  which  does  not  necessarily 
imply  a  different  reading,  nrDi:;,  but  may  well  be  regarded  as  a  rejec- 
tion of  the  trope  occasioned  by  Ps.  45  :  8,  where  the  discourse  is  of 
the  anointing  of  the  great  king  with  the  oil  of  joy  ;  and  the  more  so,  as 
this  tendency  is  manifested  by  the  Seventy  throughout  the  verse. 
Theodoret  presupposes  this  interpretation  to  be  correct,  and  as  not 
doubted  even  by  the  Jews  :  xovroig  ndhv  nQoaxid-tiKS  :  y.al  roii  ;(Q7auL 
fxyiov  ayioiv  '  rig  8s  ovrog  iariv  6  twv  ayicav  uyioc  ;  HTtuTwaav  ^lovduloi  " 
ft  Si  ayvoovai '  nag  ri^mv  /.lu&hwacev,  wg  avtog  eoTiv  6  dfanotijg  Xgiaiog, 
did  fiiv  " Hadiov  -rrgoliymv '  nviv/ja  KVgiov  in  efis,  ov  Hvsxtv  ixgioi  /.is 
kvgiog,  vno  8e  tov  Juft'id  /:inQTvgovi.i£vog,  on,  j{.  t.  I.  (Ps.  45  :  8.)  This 
understanding  of  the  translation  of  the  Seventy,  and  of  Theodoret,  is 
the  more  natural,  as  the  personal  reference  and  the  Messianic  im- 
port can  otherwise  also  be  proved,  as  tolerably  current  among  the 
Jews  from  the  most  ancient  time.  Comp.  the  passages  in  Raim. 
Martini,  p.  285.  Carpz.  Sclwttgen,  p.  264.  Edzard,  ad  Abodoh  Sa- 
rah, pp.  246,  247.  In  the  Christian  church,  this  interpretation,  the 
last  defender  of  which  is  Scholl,  obtained,  particularly  by  means  of 
the  Vulgate  {et  ungatur  sanctus  sanctorum),  a  very  wide  diffusion.  In 
the  mean  time,  however,  we  find  very  early  doubts  as  to  its  correct- 
ness. Eusebius  {Demonstr.  VIII.  c.  2.)  remarks,  he  has  never  found 
in  the  holy  Scriptures,  that  the  high  priest  was  called  sanctus  sanc- 
torum. This  ground,  somewhat  differently  understood,  viz.,  that 
D'^nn  K'np,  in  holy  Scripture,  never  occurs  of  persons,  but  always  of 
things  only,  is  alone  sufficient  to  refute  the  interpretation.  Were  this 
accidental,  the  word  would  not  occur  so  often  (forty-three  times).  Of 
no  weight  is  the  remark  of  Scholl,  p.  14,  "  Non  mirum  liunc  loquen- 
di  usum  inusitatum  esse,  cum  raro  inveniantur  personcc  hoc  nomincB 
digme."  For  he  does  not  consider  that  C^'^P  ^IV,  as  the  idiom 
sufficiently  shows,  is  a  relative  conception,  and  only  renders  promi- 
nent the  holiest  of  a  multitude  of  things  of  the  same  kind  (comp.  on 
the  expression  of  the  Superlative,  by  the  joining  of  a  noun  with  the 
same  noun  in  the  stat.  constr.  Evvald,  p.  575.),  on  which  account,  e.  g., 
the  high  priest,  in  comparison  with  the  priests,  might  well  bear  this 
name,  if  in  general  it  were  applied  to  persons ;  and  moreover,  apart 


INTERPRETATION.  -  V.  24.  323 

from  this  erroneous  assumption,  it  would  be  difficult  to  give  the  rea- 
son why  God  and  the  Messiah,  to  whom  alone  the  name  is  appro- 
priate, are  never  designated  by  it.  The  difficulty  is  increased  by 
the  circumstance,  that  Tl/JD  also  never  occurs  as  a  designation  of 
persons. 

Others,  perceiving  the  force  of  this  difficulty,  take  Q'K'np  K/np  as  re- 
lating to  things,  and  understand  it  of  the."  holy  of  holies"  of  the  tem- 
ple, but  suppose  the  type  to  stand  as  a  designation  of  the  anti-type, 
appealing  to  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  where  Jehovah  calls 
himself  K/npo,  Is.  8:14.  Ezek.  11 :  19,  and  of  the  New  Testament, 
where  Christ  compares  himself  with  a  vmg.  So,  e.  g.,  Ch.  B.  Michae- 
lis,  and  lastly,  the  reviewer  of  SchoH's  Comm.,  in  Tholuck's  Litt.  Anz. 
Jahrg.  1830.  p.  233.  By  the  objection,  that  D'K'^p  K/^p  can  designate 
not  "  the  holy  of  holies,"  but  only  "  on  holy  of  holies,"  these  interpre- 
ters are  only  required  to  modify,  in  a  measure,  their  interpretation. 
Christ  could  be  called  a  "holy  of  holies"  as  the  "new  temple," 
which  should  be  exalted  in  glory  as  much  above  the  former, 
as  the  "holy  of  holies"  surpassed  the  sanctuary.  The  appro- 
priateness of  this  brief  comparison  could  be  made  still  more 
clear,  by  the  remark,  that  the  cause  of  the  superiority  of  the  "  holy 
of  holies,"  that  which  made  it  such,  the  gracious  presence  of  the 
Lord,  is  far  more  perfectly,  completely,  and  gloriously  afforded  in 
Christ.  Nevertheless,  \ve  cannot  adopt  this  interpretation.  We  shall 
endeavour  to  establish  our  own,  before  we  proceed  to  its  refutation. 

That  the  anointing  cannot  here  be  understood  literally,  we  have 
already  seen.  We  investigate  now,  the  meaning  of  the  figurative 
expression.  The  passages  are  first  to  be  examined,  where  the  out- 
,  ward  action  embodying  the  inward  image,  then  those  where  the 
image,  as  such,  occurs.  To  the  first  class,  belong  the  following 
passages:  Exod.  30:22,  sq.,  40:9,  sq.,  the  Lord  commands  Mo- 
ses to  prepare  holy  anointing  oil,  and  therewith  to  anoint  the  taberna- 
cle, its  vessels,  and  the  priests,  who  minister  in  it.  The  import  of 
this  symbolical  action,  we  best  learn  from  Zech.  chap.  4.  (comp.  p. 
42.)  The  oil  is  the  symbol  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  the  anointing  of 
the  temple,  a  sensible  representation  of  the  imparting  of  this  Spirit  in 
the  Theocracy,  which  is  thereby  separated  from  every  thing  lying  be- 
yond the  sphere  of  the  gracious  operations  of  God,  and  sanctified. 
Calvin  :  "  Certc.  idea  nos  et  omnia  nostra  sanctijicat  spiritus  dei,  quia 
extra  ipsum  profani  sumus  it  omnia  nostra  corrupta."  The  outward 
holiness,  which,  according  to  Exod.  30 :  29,  each   one  received  by 


324  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

touching  the  vessels  of  the  temple,  consecrated  with  the  anointing 
oil,  is  symbolical  of  the  inward  holiness,  which  each  one  receives, 
who  enters  into  a  living  inward  connexion  with  the  church  of  the 
Lord.  The  correctness  of  our  interpretation  appears,  from  a  com- 
parison of  the  remaining  passages,  where  the  design  of  the  symbolic 
action  is  very  evident.  1  Sam.  10 :  1  sq.  Samuel,  after  he  has 
anointed  Saul,  says  to  him,  ."  Of  a  truth  the  Lord  has  anointed  thee 
to  be  a  prince  over  his  inheritance.  —  And  there  comes  over  thee, 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord, —  and  thou  wilt  be  changed  into  another  man. 
Then  do  thou  what  thine  hand  will  find ;  for  the  Lord  is  with  thee." 
Here,  where  the  anointing,  and  the  imparting  of  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,  stand  in  the  relation  of  cause  and  eftect,  what  can  be  plainer, 
than  that  the  former  typifies  what  the  latter  imparts  ;  that  it  is  a  seal 
and  pledge  of  the  good  things  which  the  Lord  gives  to  the  rulers  of 
his  people  for  the  prosperity  of  the  latter?  In  like  manner,  16  :  13, 
14,  where  the  anointing  of  David  is  mentioned  :  "  And  the  Lord 
said,  anoint  him ;  and  then  Samuel  took  the  oil-vessel,  and  anointed 
him,  —  and  so  fell  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  upon  David  from  that  day 
forth.  And  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  departed  from  Saul,  and  an  evil 
spirit  from  the  Lord  terrified  him."  From  the  New  Testament  we 
cite  Mark  C  :  13,  "  The  apostles  cast  out  many  devils,  and  anointed 
many  sick  persons  with  oil,  and  made  them  whole  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord."  James  5  :  14,  "  Is  any  sick,  let  him  call  the  elders  of 
the  church  ;  let  them  pray  over  him,  and  anoint  him  with  oil,  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  On  which  latter  place,  Bengel  remarks : 
"  Whitakcrii!; :  '  oleo  utantur,  qui  possuiit  (Bgrutis  sanitatem  preci- 
hus  impetrare :  qui  non  possunt.  abstineant  inani  symholo.'  Unus 
enim  illius  unctionis  scopus  initio  erat  miraculosa  sanatio,  qua  defi- 
ciente  non  est  nisi  inane  symbolum."  The  oil,  therefore,  is  here  also 
a  symbol  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  We  now  proceed  to 
those  passages,  where  the  anointing  occurs  as  a  mere  figure.  Ps. 
45  :  8,  "  Thou  hast  anointed  him,  thy  king,  with  the  oil  of  gladness," 
i.  q.  thou  hast  imparted  to  him  the  powers  and  gifts  of  thy  Spirit. 
For  that  we  are  by  no  means,  with  several  interpreters,  to  take  this 
anointing  with  "  the  oil  of  gladness,"  as  a  mere  designation  of  the 
imparting  of  joy,  borrowed  from  the  custom  of  anointing  at  feasts ; 
that  rather,  by  the  oil,  "  the  holy  anointing  oil "  is  to  be  understood, 
and  "  the  oil  of  gladness"  is  that  which  brings  joy  with  it ;  appears 
from  a  comparison  of  v.  9,  with  Exod.  30  :  23,  sq.  On  Is.  61  :  1, 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  the  Lord  has  anointed 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  24.  325 

me,"  &c.  Vitringa  justly  remarks,  "  Id  est  in  potcstafc  vocis,  ut 
notet  eos,  qui  ungi  dicimtur,  ccnscri  a  deo  ad  hanc  illam.  dignitatem 
sancfijicatos,  ad  dcum  pcrtinere  atque  ab  ipso  eum  injinem  necessariis 
dotibus'instructos  esse,  et  quidcm  in  (ecoiiomia  ecclcsicc  a  spiritu  dci. 
Unctio  infercbat  participalionem  spiritus  sancti.  Quanto  autem  offi- 
cia  sunt  nubiliora,  ad  qua;  qids  ungitur,  tanto  7najorem  sp.  s.  copiam 
unctio  affert."  1  Kings  19:  15,  sq.,  where  Elijah  receives  the  com- 
mand to  anoint  Hazael  as  king  over  Aram,  Jehu,  as  king  over  Israel, 
and  Elisha,  as  a  prophet ;  a  symbolic  action,  and  a  symbol,  are  com- 
bined with  one  another  in  a  remarkable  manner,  as  a  clear  proof  how 
little,  in  case' of  the  former,  depended  upon  the  material.  Jehu  and 
Hazael  were  actually  anointed  ;  the  latter,  only  in  order  to  symbol- 
ize the  divine  power,  which  should  be  imparted  to  him  as  an  instru- 
ment of  the  divine  penal  justice  for  the  destruction  of  Israel.  Of  an 
anointing  of  the  prophets,  we  find  elsewhere  no  trace  ;  and  in  refer- 
ence to  Elisha,  therefore,  must  the  anointing  be  regarded  as  a  figura- 
tive designation  of  the  imparting  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  In  the 
New  Testament,  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  they  are  imparted  to 
the  true  members  of  the  church,  the  ItQanv^m  uyiov  xal  ^aalluov 
(1  Pet.  2  :  5,  9.),  are  called  directly  xQu^m  1  John  2  :  20,  27,  and  the 
anointing  occurs  Acts  4  :  27,  10  :  38,  2  Cor.  1  :  21,  partly  without 
an  adjunct,  partly  with  the  addition  nvhv^ian  m/Zm,  of  an  iniparting  of 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  to  Christ,  and  to  believers.  —  In  reference  to 
the  agreement  between  the  figure  and  tlie  reality,  comp.  Vitringa,  on 
Is.  10 :  27. 

What  now  is  intended  by  the  Q'K'^P  ^'IP,  to  be  consecrated  and 
supplied  with  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  ?  Plainly  "  the  new  temple  of 
the  Lord,"  the  Church  of  the  new  Covenant.  That  the  temple,  as 
the  seat  of  the  Theocracy  under  the  old  covenant,  not  unfrequently 
occurs  as  a  designation  of  the  church,  we  have  already  seen  on  Zech. 
6 :  12.  We  will  now  cite  some  passages  from  the  Psalms,  which 
prove  how  general  this  more  .spiritual  consideration  of  the  temple 
was;  where,  disregarding  the  shell,  only  the  kernel,  the  gracious 
presence  of  the  Lord,  was  seen.  Ps.  15:  1,  "Who  shall  dwell  in 
thy  tabernacle,  who  shall  abide  upon  thy  holy  hill  1 "  These  words 
signify  precisely,  "  Who  belongs  to  the  members  of  thy  house,  thy 
confidents,  thy  Spiritual  Church  ?  "  A  question,  which  the  Psalmist 
was  led  to  ask,  by  seeing  a  great  mixed  multitude  assemble  at  the 
outward  temple.  Ps.  22  :  6,  "  My  dwelling  is  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord  for  ever."     The  sense  is  here,  by  understanding  the  passage  su- 


326  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

perficially,  entirely  perverted.  It  is  commonly  supposed,  that  by  the 
"  dwelling  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,"  a  residence  in  the  outward  tem- 
ple is  to  be  understood,  without  considering  that  the  discourse  can- 
not be  of  such  a  residence,  but  that  a  permanent  condition  is  re- 
quired by  the  parallelism.  "To  dwell  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,"  is 
here  also,  to  enjoy  his  near  presence  and  confidence  ;  comp.  Ps.  5  : 
5,  "  The  ungodly  dwells  not  with  thee"  ;  —  Ps.  63  :  4,  "  Thus  do 
I  behold  thee  in  the  sanctuary."  By  "  the  presence  of  the  Lord," 
for  which  the  Psalmist  so  ardently  longs,  the  desolate  wilderness  is 
converted  into  the  temple  of  the  Lord.  For,  where  God  is,  there  is 
the  sanctuary.  Ps.  73  :  17,  "  Until  I  go  into  the  sanctuaries  of  the 
Lord,"  Sx  ■'K''7p"?,  according  to  the  constant  usage,  which  can  be 
relinquished  with  De  Wetle  only  from  mere  caprice,  the  temple ;  the 
plural,  with  reference  to  the  threefold  division  of  the  same.  With 
regard  to  the  temple,  however,  the  Psalmist  thinks  not  of  the  shadow, 
but  the  substance,  the  presence  of  the  Lord.  To  "  come  into  the 
temple  of  the  Lord,"  is  to  draw  near  to  him,  in  order  to  draw  from 
his  rich  fountain  the  knowledge,  which,  according  to  v.  16,  carnal 
reason  cannot  give.  Ps.  27 :  4,  "  One  thing  do  I  desire  of  the 
Lord,  only  that  do  I  seek,  that  I  may  dwell  in  the  house  of  the  Lord 
all  the  days  of  my  life,  to  behold  the  favor  of  the  Lord,  and  to  inquire 
in  his  temple."  The  Lord  is  the  light  and  salvation  of  the  Psalmist. 
Therefore,  he  has  only  one  prayer,  only  one  wish  ;  that  the  Lord  would 
remain  with  him,  in  whom  every  thing  else  is  included  ;  that  he  may 
never  lose  his  favor  or  be  excluded  from  his  fellowship.  That  the 
outward  temple,  as  such,  is  not  here  intended,  is  evident  from  v.  5, 
which  is  connected  with  this  by  O.  If  there,  the  being  concealed  in 
the  tabernacle,  and  in  the  tent  of  the  Lord,  is  to  be  understood  alto- 
gether figuratively,  so  must  the  gross  literal  understanding  here  also 
be  entirely  absurd.  It  is  likewise  only  in  the  spiritual  sense  that 
nnx  can  be  explained.  It  is  one  thing,  which  gives  David  courage 
against  the  whole  world  ;  it  is  one  thing,  therefore,  only,  which  he 
desires  and  seeks ;  not  a  residence  in  the  outward  temple,  but  the 
possession  of  the  mercy  of  the  Lord.  In  addition  to  this,  the  false 
interpretation  of  njn;  Dj^jn  nirnS  by  "  to  behold  the  beauty  of  the 
Lord,"  is  connected  with  the  literal  understanding,  while  njn.'  DJ^J 
never  has  any  other  meaning  than  "  the  grace,  the  mercy,  of  the  Lord," 
and  the  equally  erroneous  interpretation  of  i^^'nq  ")p5^  by  "  and 
to  view  thy  sanctuary  with  pleasure,"  while  "ipa  never  has  the  mean- 
ing, "  to  see."     The  oliject  of  the  Psalmist's  reflection,  is  the  mercy 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  24.  327 

of  the  Lord,  his  exalted  protector.  The  whole  of  the  84th  Psalm, 
"  How  amiable  are  thy  tabernacles,  O  Lord  of  Hosts,"  can  receive 
an  easy  and  natural  interpretation  only  by  supposing  that  the  temple 
is  wherever  God  is.  The  absurdity  of  the  literal  understanding  is 
especially  evident  in  v.  4. 

The  prophet  designates  the  new  temple  which  should  be  anointed 
by  the  grace  of  the  Lord,  as  "  a  holy  of  holies,"  in  contrast  with  the 
former,  only  one  particular  part  of  which  received  this  name.  Just 
as  Ezekiel,  in  the  cited  passage,  for  the  same  reason,  described  the 
whole  compass  of  the  hill,  on  which  the  new  temple  should  be  built, 
as  a  "  holy  of  holies."  The  cited  passages  of  the  Pentateuch  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  the  figurative  representation,  in  which  the  anoint- 
ing of  the  outward  temple  is  treated  of.  This  outward  anointing 
stands  to  that  here  described,  in  the  relation  of  the  type  to  the  antitype. 
The  anointing  of  a  "  holy  of  holies  "  stands  in  antithesis  with  the 
desolation  of  the  sanctuary,  and  the  destruction  of  the  wing  of  abom- 
ination in  V.  26,  27.  The  former  sanctuary  is  destroyed,  because 
it  has  become  a  mere  shell  without  a  kernel ;  because,  through  the 
guilt  of  the  people,  that  which  made  it  the  sanctuary,  the  presence 
of  the  Lord,  has  departed  from  it ;  a  new  sanctuary,  without  a  cover- 
ing and  shell  ;  a  new  dwelling-place  of  God  on  earth,  is  consecrated. 
What  gives  to  this  interpretation  the  advantage  over  that  of  the  per- 
son of  the  Messiah,  besides  this  double  reference,  is  as  follows.  L 
Although  it  neither  can,  nor  should  be  denied,  that  the  representa- 
tion of  the  Messiah  under  the  image  of  the  true  temple,  is,  in  gene- 
ral, possible  ;  still,  it  never  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament ;  while  the 
supposition,  that  the  "holy  of  holies"  signifies  the  church  of  the 
Lord,  has  a  multitude  of  analogies  in  its  favor.  2.  By  "the  anoint- 
ing of  the  Messiah,"  nothing  else  could  be  understood,  than  the  im- 
parting of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  for  the  execution  of  his  office,  as  it  is 
described  Is.  11  :  1,  and  as  it  took  place  at  his  baptism.  This,  how- 
ever, falls  in  the  end  of  the  GOth  week.  It  relates  to  the  remaining 
blessings  promised  in  this  verse,  as  the  cause  to  its  effect,  and  it 
must,  therefore,  be  very  surprising,  if  it  is  mentioned  coordinately 
with  thern,  nay,  even  in  tl^e  last  place  ;  and  the  more  so,  as  the  S 
repeated  before  each  particular  blessing,  shows  that  they  are  not  to 
be  considered,  in  general,  as  being  imparted  during  the  period  of  the 
70  weeks  of  years,  but  as  existing  in  their  full  completion  at  the 
close  of  this  period,  while  the  anointing  of  the  Messiah,  as  one  par- 
ticular action,  not  progressive,  like  the  rest,  woul^  not  reach  this 


328  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

terminus  ad  quern.  That  the  sealing  of  sin  also,  &.C.,  as  effected  by 
the  death  of  the  Messiah,  would  not  reach  this  termination,  need  not 
be  objected.  Its  objective  completion  falls,  it  is  true,  in  the  middle 
of  the  70th  week  of  years;  the  subjective,  however,  the  imparting  of 
the  treasures  of  grace  and  forgiveness,  procured  by  the  Messiah, 
reaches  its  termination  ;  as,  in  v.  27,  the  confirmation  of  the  covenant 
for  many,  is  described  as  extending  through  the  whole  70th  week. 
Even  therewith,  also,  was  the  sealing  of  the  vision  first  to  be  com- 
pleted. For  the  prophets  speak,  throughout,  not  merely  of  the  atone- 
ment as  an  objective  transaction,  but,  at  the  same  time,  of  the  appro- 
priation of  the  same  by  the  covenant  people. 

Verse  25. 

"And  thou  wilt  know  and  understand,  from  the  going  forth  of  the 
word  to  restore,  and  to  build  Jerusalem,  until  an  Anointed  One,  a 
Prince,  are  7  weeks,  and  2  and  60  weeks.  The  street  will  be  re- 
stored and  built,  and  it  is  firmly  determined,  and  in  times  of  distress." 

"  And  thou  loilt  knotv  and  understand." 

That  h'D^m)  jrini  is  not  to  be  explained  with  most  interpreters  by, 
"  mark  well,"  but  rather,  as  the  Seventy  {xal  yvwoji  't"*  Siavo^O '>](}]]) 
and  Theodotion  {y.ul  yvwa;i  yal  avrijaeig),  the  fut.  must  be  taken  in 
the  sense  o[fut.,  while  the  Vulg.  (^scito  ergo  et  animadoertc)  has  led 
the  way  to  the  false  interpretation,  which  takes  it  in  the  imperative, 
we  have  already  shown  in  the  Bcitrdgen,  I.  p.  261.  This  mistake  is 
refuted  even  by  the  form,  which,  only  in  exceptions  which  are  sel- 
dom found,  stands  for  the  impcr.  and  optat. ;  comp.  Ewald,  p.  527. 
About  to  impart  to  Daniel,  by  carrying  out  farther  the  picture  which 
had  only  been  sketched,  a  further  disclosure  concerning  the  future 
condition  of  his  people,  and  thus  to  fulfil  the  design  of  his  coming, 
announced  v.  27,  ("  I  am  come  to  give  thee  insight,")  Gabriel  awa- 
kens attention  by  these  introductory  words,  which  indeed  indirectly, 
at  the  same  time,  contain  an  admonition  to  attend,  as  the  promise 
to  give  insight  presupposes,  that  this  is  not  attainable  by  human  pow- 
er, and  that  things  would  be  treated  of,  respecting  which,  God  only 
could  make  a  disclosure.  Finally,  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked,  that 
"  Thou  wilt  know  and  understand  "  expresses  only  the  design  of  the 
teacher,  and  not  the  capacity  of  the  scholar  ;  that  therefore,  the 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  25.  329 

promise  was  only  so  far  fulfilled  as  the  latter  allowed,  and  that,  in  the 
case  of  this  prophecy  also,  there  remained  for  Daniel  no  less  dark- 
ness, than  with  respect  tx)  that,  chap.  12,  which  the  angel  in  v.  9 
describes,  as  shut  up  even  for  him.  '^ 

"  Froin  the  going  forth  of  the  word." 

That '13'J  N"/o  here  signifies  the  emanation  of  a  decree,  as  (2  :  13,) 
it  is  said  of  the  command  to  slay  the  Magians,  "it  has  gone  forth," 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  farther  designation  by  word,  occurs 
elsewhere;  also,  e.g.  1  Sam.  15  :  23,  17:29,  Esth.  4:3,  where 
the  discourse  relates  to  command.  The  only  question  is,  who  must 
be  regarded  as  the  author  of  tlie  command?  By  far  the  larger  num- 
ber of  interpreters  take  a  Persian  king  as  such  ;  we,  however,  assert, 
that  only  a  going  forth  of  the  command  from  God,  or  from  the  hea- 
venly council,  can  be  intended,  and  indeed  for  the  following  reasons. 
1.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  unnatural,  that  the  word  of  an  earthly 
ruler  should  be  here  designated  by  nnn,  without  a  single  syllable 
being  said  of  such  a  person  in  what  precedes  and  follows,  either  di- 
rectly or  indirectly.  Nothing  is  effected  by  an  appeal  to  Dan.  2  :  13, 
and  Esth.  4 :  3.  For,  in  the  first  passage,  he,  from  whom  the  com- 
mand goes  forth,  as  well  as  the  command  itself,  is  mentioned  in 
the  foregoing  context,  and  in  the  second,  ("  in  all  places,  where  the 
word  of  the  king  and  his  command  arrived,")  the  meaning  is  ren- 
dered definite  in  the  verse  itself  He,  from  whom  the  word  here 
goes  forth,  must  rather  be  the  same,  through  whom  all  the  fortunes 
of  the  covenant  people,  predicted  throughout  the  prophecy,  are 
determined,  who  has  cut  off  the  70  weeks  over  his  people,  from 
whom  the  decree  of  the  ruins  of  v.  26,  and  the  final  sentence  in 
V.  27,  proceed  ;  and  the  more  so,  since,  at  the  end  of  the  verse 
(]*nni),  he  ist  expressly  mentioned  as  the  person,  by  whom  the  de- 
cree for  the  rebuilding  of  the  city  was  formed.  2.  The  expression 
151  XV'^  is  used,  V.  23,  of  a  divine  decree ;  viz.  that  70  weeks  of 
years  should  be  determined  upon  the  people.  Surely,  no  one  could 
find  it  easy  to  suppose  that  here,  where,  because  the  discourse  con- 
tinues to  relate  to  the  transactions  of  Daniel  with  the  heavenly  mes- 
senger, the  agent  is  expressed  in  a  manner  equally  indefinite,  anoth- 
er person  is  suddenly  to  be  supplied  as  such. 

But  how  can  an  invisible  fact  be  placed  as  terminus  a  quo,  since 
that  must  be  perceptible  by  the  senses,  if  the  whole  prophecy  is  not 

VOL.  11.  42 


330  THE   SEVENTY   WEEKS   OF   DANIEL. 

to  be  illusory,  if  it  is  to  be  possible,  after  the  fulfilment,  to  be  con- 
vinced of  its  truth  by  chronological  calculation  ?  We  answer,  with 
God  the  difference  in  point  of  time  between  word  and  deed  ceases. 
Word  and  execution  are  one  with  him.  He  commands,  and  it 
stands  there.  He  speaks,  and  it  is  done.  Ps.  33  :  9,  Gen.  chap.  1, 
Ps.  119:90,91,  148:5,  Is.  48:  13.  This  coincidence  of  the  word 
and  deed  is  impressed  even  on  the  language.  Thus  the  verb  i^J, 
which  of  itself  can  signify  only  the  verbal  rebuke,  and  used  of  men 
designates  only  that,  occurs,  in  respect  to  God,  also  of  the  real  chas- 
tisement. Thus  rijV,  to  command,  includes  in  itself  also  the  execu- 
tion of  the  divine  commands.  The  appearance  of  the  terminvs  a 
quo  occurs,  therefore,  when  the  commencement  of  the  execution  of 
the  divine  command  is  seen.  Petavius,  who  (1.  12.  De  Doctr.  Temp., 
c.  32.  t.  11.  p.  262.  ed.  Antv.)  remarks,  "Ego  vocalmlufn  Nvb  nan 
solum  arhitror  edicti  promulgationem,  scd  amplius  ali-quid  esse,  nempe 
id  qtiod  latina  voxproprie  signijicat,  veramet  scriam  dccreti  illiiis  exe- 
cutionem,  ita  ut  mora  omni  impedimentoque  sublato  opus  ipsum  urgeri 
et  Hierosolyma  instnurari  cceperit,"  as  to  the  substance,  was  far 
more  correct  than  his  opposers,  who  have  easily  proved  to  him,  that 
he  took  X^io  in  a  false  sense,  comp.  e.  g.  Frischmuth  in  the  Thesaur. 
Theol.  Phil.  I.  p.  912.  He  only  erred  by  adopting  the  false  sup- 
position, that  the  discourse  is  here  of  the  edict  of  a  Persian  king, 
and  attributing  to  the  import  of  the  word,  that  which,  according  to 
a  correct  interpretation,  follows  from  the  nature  of  the  acting  subject. 

"  To  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem." 

As  the  tlrminus  ad  quern,  corresponding  to  the  terminus  a  quo 
Xi'b"]n,  is  designated  by  the  following  n;*,  so  is  the  h  in  T^rfi  taken 
by  most  interpreters,  not,  as  it  usually  stands  in  such  a  connexion 
(comp.  e.  g.  Dan.  12:  11),  as  a  designation  of  a  terminus  ad  qiiem, 
but  of  the  object  of  the  word,  as  e.  g.  1  Sam.  19  :  1,  "  Saul  spoke 
to  slay,  n^pn'?,  David."  We  may,  however,  very  well  take  both  S  and 
'^y  as  a  designation  of  the  term,  od  quern.,  and  then  the  first  term,  ad 
quern  would  serve  at  the  same  time  as  term,  a  quo  for  the  second  : 
from  the  going  forth  of  the  word  (to  restore  Jerusalem),  until  the 
restoration  of  Jerusalem,  (and  from  there,)  until  an  anointed  One, 
a  Prince.  Then  the  first  of  the  two  following  dates,  would  desig- 
nate the  compass  of  the  first  period,  from  the  command  for  the 
restoration  of  Jerusalem,  till  its  execution.     The  second,  the  com- 


INTERPRETATION— V.  25.  331 

pass  of  the  second,  from  the  finishing  of  the  restoration,  until  the 
anointed  One.  An  entirely  similar  union  of  two  termini  ad  quern, 
of  which  the  first  serves  again  as  terminus  a  quo  to  the  second,  is 
found  e.  g.  Jer.  31  :  40,  D'piDn  -i>»b/  ni3-n^  jnip.  Snrnji^,  "to  the 
brook  Kedron  (and  from  there)  to  the  corner  of  the  horse-gate." 
This  interpretation  is  favored  even  by  the  following  twofold  deter- 
miiiationof  time,  which  leads  us  to  expect,  that  in  the  foregoing  also, 
where  this  twofold  period  of  time  is  determined  as  to  its  beginning 
and  end,  its  consisting  of  two  parts  would  be  mentioned.  We 
need  not  object  to  this  interpretation,  that  "13T  xvb"jp  would  then 
stand  too  much  apart.  This  is  still  more  true  of  13T.  N^^  in  v.  23. 
What  the  contents  of  the  divine  command  which  has  gone  forth 
may  be,  must  there  first  be  inferred  from  v.  24  ;  viz,  that  70  weeks 
are  determined  upon  the  city.  Here  the  object  is  determined  by 
what  immediately  follows.  Precisely  this  agreement  with  v.  23, 
however,  is  an  argument  for  the  correctness  of  our  interpretation. 
Nor  may  we  urge  the  objection,  that  then  i;'  would  rather  be  placed 
instead  of  S.  The  prepositions  which  of  themselves  designate  a 
mere  direction  ivhithcr,  are,  in  all  languages,  placed  also  where 
the  motion  proceeds  until  it  reaches  the  object,  without  thereby 
losing  their  proper  meaning.  In  Hebrew,  such  a  use  of  S  is  so 
frequent,  that  it  is  scarcely  worth  the  trouble  to  cite  examples.  Of 
returning  to  the  Lord,  S  "^W  or  S^f.,  and  nj^  liw,  are  promiscuously 
used.  In  Zech.  14  :  10,  pa'?'?  J^3Jn  designates  the  whole  extent 
of  the  holy  land,  from  the  one  extreme  boundary  to  the  other. 
Here,  however,  there  was  a  special  reason  for  the  choice  of  the  S. 
The  restoration  of  Jerusalem,  if  we  consider  the  given  period  as 
a  whole,  forms  merely  a  point  of  transition.  In  order  to  indicate 
this,  "^V  is  placed  before  the  absolute  terminus  ad  quern. 

T\V'r\  has  been  misunderstood  in  various  ways.  1.  Several  in- 
terpreters understand  it  of  the  bringing  back  of  the  people.  But, 
apart  from  the  violent  ellipse  which  must  be  supposed,  the  reference 
of  ytrh  to  Jerusalem  is  sufficiently  plain  from  3iK^n,  which  stands 
in  close  relation  to  it,  which,  like  riri;3J,  can  be  referred  only  to  3ini, 
street.  2.  Others,  as  Scaliger  and  Bertholdt,  p.  051,  explain,  "to 
rebuild";  asserting  that  3r«y  expresses,  even  in  Hiph.,  a  mere  rep- 
etition of  a  thing.  But  we  need  only  look  at  the  only  proof-passage 
cited  by  them,  to  be  convinced,  that  it  affords  no  argument  for  an 
opinion,  which  deserves  beforehand  to  be  rejected.  2  Sam.  15  :  25, 
"  And  the  king  said  to  Zadok,  bring  back  the  ark  of  the  covenant 


332  THE   SEVENTY   WEEKS   OF   DANIEL. 

to  the  city ;  if  I  shall  find  mercy  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  "'JTB'ni, 
so  will  he  bring  me  back,  cause  me  to  see  it  and  its  dwelling-place." 
TWTS  is  here,  as  alwaysftransitive :  to  cause  to  return,  to  bring  bach. 
But  what  is  it  now,  "  to  cause  a  city  to  return,  or,  to  bring  back  a 
city  "  1  It  designates  its  complete  restitution  into  its  former  condition. 
This  is  shown,  among  other  passages,  by  Ezek.  16  :  55,  "  And  thy 
sisters,  Sodom  and  her  daughters,  will  return  to  their  former  con- 
dition, jnnipS  T\yyi;T\,  and  Samaria  and  her  daughters  will  return 
to  their  former  condition,  and  thou  and  thy  daughters  will  return 
into  your  former  condition."  Seventy,  ""Anoytaxaota&riaoi'xat,  xa&cog 
-^aav  an  aQxt]?-  It  is  said  before,  v.  53,  "  I  turn  the  captivity, 
nnt?'  n^  'r^?^,  of  Sodom  and  her  daughters,"  &c. ,  a  phrase,  which 
never,  as  the  interpreters  for  the  most  part  falsely  assume,  imports 
the  bringing  back  of  captives,  but  always,  and  without  exception, 
the  restitution  to  the  former  condition, — noiy,  captivity,  as  a 
figurative  designation  of  misfortune,  —  and  here,  even  on  account 
of  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  the  last  words  of  the  verse,  "and 
I  turn  the  captivity  of  thy  captives,"  must  necessarily  have  this 
sense.  In  the  passage  before  us,  the  restitution  to  the  former  con- 
dition receives,  through  vthe  subjoined  mJnS,  especial  limitation. 
"  To  bring  back  and  to  build,"  &c  ,  "  bring  back  to  build,  or,  build- 
ing to  bring  back,"  to  build  up  the  city  again  in  its  ancient  circumfe- 
rence, the  same  which  Jeremiah  (33:  7)  expresses  by  the  words  "to 
build  as  in  the  beginning."  The  importance  of  the  farther  definition 
by  ^'K/n,  subjoined  to  "to  build,"  sufficiently  appears  from  the  fact, 
that  before  nn^ZjJ,  ^wr\   is  afterwards  repeated. 

From  this  determination  of  the  import  of  ^'K'riS,  we  gain  this 
important  result:  that  we  must  not  seek  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the 
70  weeks  of  years,  in  the  time  of  the  firsr  poor  commencement  of 
a  rebuilding,  but  rather  in  that,  when,  according  to  the  testimony 
of  history,  a  work  was  commenced,  which  promised  to  restore  the 
city  nearly  to  its  ancient  condition,  with  respect  to  its  extent  and 
the  beauty  of  its  edifices.  This  supposition,  which  is  hereby  alone 
fully  established,  receives  further  confirmation  from  the  following 
arguments.  1.  "  Seventy  weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  people  and 
thy  holy  city,"  seems  to  shovy,  that  the  city,  as  well  as  the  people, 
was  in  existence  at  the  beginning  of  the  70  weeks  of  years  ;  that, 
therefore,  the  beginning  of  the  same  cannot,  in  general,  give  the 
terminus  a  quo.  2.  In  the  prediction  of  the  destruction,  in  v.  26, 
as  well  as  in  v,  27,  the  temple  is  mentioned  together  with  the  city. 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  25.  333 

That  it  is  not  mentioned  here,  in  the  prediction  of  the  rebuilding, 
that  merely  the  building  of  the  streets  of  the  city  is  spoken  of, 
presupposes  the  sanctuary,  at  the  commencement  of  the  building 
here  treated  of,  as  already  built;  since  we  cannot  suppose,  that  the 
angel  would  have  omitted  that  which  was  most  important,  on  ac- 
count of  which  Daniel  iiad  chiefly  mourned  and  had  most  earnestly 
prayed,  comp.  e.  g.  v.  17-20;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  exist- 
ence of  the  temple  requires,  that  the  rebuilding  of  the  city  should 
have  already  commenced. 

Several  interpreters  take  nJD  here  in  the  sense  to  fortify,  and 
indeed  l'^'.  n33  often  occurs  in  this  sense,  (comp.  the  proofs  in 
Gesen.  Thes.,  and  in  Winer,  s.  v.,  and  best  in  Michaelis,  Suppl. 
p.  190,  and  on  Josh.  6:5,  who  points  out  this  idiom  also  in  the 
Syriac;)  not  as  though  the  verb  received  a  new  meaning,  but  ex 
materia  suhjccta,  partly  because  the  building,  in  the  case  of  a  city 
already  in  existence,  is  necessarily  limited  to  its  fortification,  as 
2  Chron.  11  : 5,  '^li'^S  nJ3,  then,  v.  6,  nJ3  simply,  partly  because  the 
idea  of  a  city,  taken  in  its  whole  compass,  includes  its  fortification. 
But  that  this  m.eaning  is  not  applicable  here,  sufficiently  appears 
from  what  follows,  "streets  are  built,"  where  the  internal  part  of 
the  city  is  precisely  designated,  as  that  which  was  to  be  built.  This 
interpretation  is  owing  merely  to  the  wish  to  be  able  to  place  the 
ter7uinus  a  quo  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  the  gratification  of  which 
was  expected  from  this  false  interpretation  of  ^'Z'rh  and  iwr\, 

*'  Until  an   Anointed  One,  a  Prince." 

Several  recent  interpreters,  as  Bertholdt  and  Ilitzig,  explain, 
*'  until  an,  or,  until  the  Anointed  Prince."  This  interpretation  is, 
however,  to  be  considered  as  decidedly  ungrammatical.  HTp,  as 
the  older  interpreters  (comp,  e.  g.  Vitringa  in  his  excellent  treatise, 
De  Seventy  Hebrlom.  Dan.,  Ohserv.  Sacrr.,  t.  II.  p.  290,)  unani- 
mously remark,  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  adjective,  belonging  to 
n-JJ,  because  the  adjective  in  Hebrew  is  placed  after  the  substan- 
tive. This  rule  is  entirely  without  exception.  That  passages  like 
those  cited  by  Bertholdt,  p.  654,  —  e.  g.  1  Chron.  28:5,  D'3T  O 
^^li^?  '^  1^^  ^''^^,  not  "many  children  has  the  Lord  given  to  me," 
&-C.,  but  "  many  are  the  children,  which,"  &c.,  —  are  no  exception  ; 
that  in  them  the  qualifying  word  does  not  belong  to  the  noun  as 
an  adjective,  but  forms  the  predicate,  is  too  obvious  to  require  any 


334  THE   SEVENTY    WEEKS   OF   DANIEL.  ] 

proof.  But  even  the  only  two  passages,  which  Ewald,  p.  627,  still 
regards  as  exceptions,  and  which  are  liable  to  suspicion,  eVen  on 
account  of  their  being  the  only  examples,  appear  on  a  closer  exam- 
ination, strictly  to  come  within  the  rule.  Jer.  16:  16,  is  toJ)e  trans- 
lated, "and  afterwards  will  I  send  many  others,  huntsmen,"  with 
reference  to  the  preceding,  "  Behold,  I  send  many  fishers,  saith  the 
Lord,  and  they  fish  them."  Ps.  89:51,  '"all  the  many,  yea,  na- 
tions," so  that  we  have  a  climax,  "great  multitudes,  yea,  whole 
nations." 

Those  now,  who  justly  regard  D'li'n  as  a  noun,  and  TJJ  as  in 
apposition  with  it,  mostly  take  n'K'o  here  as  a  sort  of  jiroper  name  of 
Christ,  appealing  to  the  absence  of  the  article,  and  hence  they  derive 
an  argument  against  the  non-Messianic  interpretation.  If  we  look 
merely  at  n'K/o,  this  interpretation  is  very  plausible.  That  Apella- 
tives,  when  they  pass  over  into  proper  names,  gradually  lose  the 
article,  because  the  individual  thereby  designated  as  the  only  one 
of  his  kind  needs  not  to  be  distinguished  from  others,  is  well  known. 
Thus  p'''?i?,,  spoken  of  God,  often  stands  without  the  article.  Numb. 
24  :  16,  Deut.  32  :  8,  Ps.  21  :  8,  46  :  5.  Thus  the  Messiah,  as  king 
xar  i^oxrjv,  in  comparison  with  whom  all  who  are  otherwise  called 
kings  are  no  kings,  is  named  simply  'ij'^.rri,  without  the  article,  Ps. 
45  :  1,  72:  1.  As  n?3^,  as  a  designation  of  the  Messiah,  occurs  in 
Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  appellatively,  and  with  a  more  particular  defi- 
nition subjoined,  and  in  Zechariah  without  this,  and  as  a  proper 
name,  so  also  might  n"4'?,  on  the  ground  of  Ps.  2,  where  it  is  found 
as  an  appellative  designation  of  Christ,  have  become  among  the 
pious  so  current  a  designation  of  the  Messiah,  as  to  assume  the 
nature  of  a  proper  name,  and,  as  such,  to  stand  in  no  need  of  being 
rendered  more  definite.  This  supposition  is  the  less  difficult,  since 
at  a  later  period  this  has  undeniably  occurred,  in  reference  to  D'^tJ^a  ; 
comp.  e.  g.  John  4  :  25,  where  the  Samaritan  woman  says,  "  I  know 
oTi  MiatHug  (not  o  Mscfalug)  sQ^sTai,  6  ksyofASfog  XQiaxog"  But  this  in- 
terpretation, however  just,  if  n^B^n  stood  alone,  appears  as  untenable, 
if  we  consider  the  subjoined  TJJ.  For  as  this  word  cannot  also  be 
regarded  as  a  proper  name,  as  it  occurs  (v.  26)  as  a  designation  of  the 
heathen  prince,  so,  if  this  interpretation  were  correct,  it  must  have 
the  article,  the  Messiah,  the  Prince,  as  e.  g.  we  cannot  say,  '^Sr3  TH, 
but  only  y^X^  "in.  We  must,  therefore,  translate,  "  an  Anointed 
One,  a  Prince,"  and  assume,  that  the  prophet,  in  accordance  with  the 
uniform  character  of  his  prophecy,  chose  the  more  indefinite,  instead 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  25.  335 

of  the  more  definite  designation,  and  spoke  only  of  an  Anointed 
One,  a  Prince,  instead  of  the  Anointed  One,  the  Prince,  y.ax  f^oxrjv, 
and  left  his  hearers  to  draw  a  deeper  knowledge  respecting  him, 
from  the  prevailing  expectations,  grounded  on  earlier  prophecies  of 
a  future  great  King,  from  the  remaining  declarations  of  the  context, 

^  and  from  the  fulfilment,  the  coincidence  of  which  with  the  proph- 
ecy must  here  be  the  more  obvious,  since  an  accurate  date  had 
been  given. 

That  the  reference  to  Christ  is  so  manifest  as  to  force  itself  upon 
even  the  most  prejudiced,  appears  from  the  following  remarkable 
confession  of  Bertholdt  (1.  c.  p^5G3) :  "  That  at  the  words  n^JlJ  n'B?D 
we  should  be  led  to  think  of  the  Messiah,  Jesus,  and  at  those  v.  26, 
lS  pxi  n'B'D  niD'jof  his  crucifixion,  though  not  absolutely  necessary, 
is  still  very  natural."  We  leave  out  of  view  for  the  present  the  con- 
firmation, which  this  reference  receives  from  the  fulfilment,  and 
unfold  only  the  grounds,  which  were  accessible  to  Daniel  himself, 
and  his  contemporaries,  on  a  deeper  investigation.  1.  The  bless- 
ings predicted  in  the  foregoing  verse,  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  the 
introduction  of  everlasting  righteousness,  &c.,  belong,  as  already 
mentioned,  to  the  uniform  characteristics  of  the  Messianic  time  in 
the  prophets.  When  now,  in  a  representation  which  announces 
itself  by  "  thou  wilt  know  and  understand  "  as  a  farther  continua- 
tion of  the  contents  of  v.  24,  the  discourse  relates  to  an  exalted 
King,  who  should  make  his  appearance  after  69  weeks  of  years, 
and  therefore  shortly  before  the  time  in  which  the  finished  con- 
ferring of  these  blessings  upon  the  covenant  people  was  placed,  how 
could  it  be  thought  otherwise,  than  that  this  King  should  be  the 
author  of  these  blessings,  the  Messiah,  announced  as  such  by  all 
the  prophets?  2.  This  connexion  between  the  person  and  the  impart- 

•ing  of  the  blessings,  is  farther  especially  indicated  by  the  relation 
of  the  designation  of  the  person  as  n'^^n  to  the  phrase  i^np  niypS 
^'"'^l^l-  "  By  the  Anointed  One  shall  a  holy  of  holies  be  anointed." 
Precisely  in  order,  to  make  this  reference  prominent,  is  K'np  ni^aS 
D'^lp  placed  at  the  end,  and  T\W'0  before  TJJ.  3.  As  TJJ  does  not 
exclude  the  reference  to  the  Messiah,  as  it  occurs  of  him  Is.  55  :  4 
(comp.  in  loco),  so  does  n^o,  which  here  relates  to  T'JJ  as  the 
special  to  the  general,  notwithstanding  its  indefiniteness  decidedly 
point  to  him  ;  like  the  corresponding  ns^,  Is.  9 :  6,  Sk>d,  Mic.  5  : 1, 
and  XTJ,  Ezek.  34  :  24.  It  serves  more  closely  to  designate  TJJ  as 
a  Theocratic  regent,  just  as  I  Sam.  10  : 1,  ("  And  Samuel  took  the 


336  THE   SEVENTY    WEEKS   OF  DANIEL. 

oil  vessel,  and  poured  it  upon  his  (Saul's)  head  and  kissed  him, 
and  said,  Of  a  truth  the  Lord  hath  anointed  thee,  as  a  prince  over 
his  inheritance,"  T'Jj'?  li^'^nrSj;  Tt\r\\  ^r\vj'Q,)  the  anointing  makes 
Saul  not  a  regent  in  general,  but  a  Theocratic  regent,  who,  as  God's 
representative,  is  furnished  by  him  with  the  gifts  necessary  for  his 
office.  The  assertion  is  entirely  false,  that  every  heathen  king  also 
could  bear  the  name  n^'K/n,  Anointed.  It  is  refuted,  as  well  by  the* 
already  established  import  of  the  symbol,  and  figure  of  anointing, 
as  by  the  usage  of  the  language.  In  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, only  one  single  heathen  king  (Cyrus,  in  Is.  45  : 1,)  is  called 
n''B'a,  and  he  not  indeed  as  such,  hut  on  account  of  the  remarkable 
relation,  of  which  there  is  no  other  example  in  history,  in  which  he 
stood  to  the  theocracy,  the  rich  gifts  with  which  God  endowed 
him  for  its  benefit,  the  comme^ncement  of  the  true  knowledge  of 
God  enjoyed  by  him,  as  exhibited  in  his  edict  in  the  book  of  Ezra, 
(comp.  Kleinert,  p.  138,  sq.),  and  the  typical  relation,  which  he  sus-  • 
tained  to  the  author  of  the  higher  deliverance,  the  Messiah.  Cyrus 
could,  in  a  measure,  be  regarded  as  a  theocratic  prince,  and  as  such 
he  is  represented  in  Isaiah.  Comp.  the  striking  remarks  of  Vitringa 
on  Is.  1.  c.  Only  in  connexion  with  this  whole  description,  is  he 
represented  in  Isaiah  as  an  anointed  of  God,  and  it  by  ho  means 
follows  from  this  passage,  that  he  could  be  so  called  without  such 
a  connexion,  and  still  less,  that  another  heathen  king  could  receive 
this  name,  who  resembled  him  only  in  that  which  was  not  the 
ground  of  his  being  designated  as  n"Z'0.  4.  The  context  furnishes 
us  with  still  another  proof,  besides  that  which  lies  in  the  word  itself, 
that  not  a  heathen,  but  a  Theocratic  king  is  intended.  This  is 
found  in  the  manifest  antithesis  between  TJJ  n'K/o  and  N3n  T'JJ  in 
v.  26.  The  general  TJJ  is  common  to  both  designations.  In  oppo- 
sition to  n'ty^O,  as  a  special  characteristic  of  the  Theocratic  king^ 
stands  X3n,  he  who  comes,  advena,  as  a  designation  of  a  heathen 
prince.  If  then  it  is  established,  that  by  TJJ  n''tyn  only  a  Theo- 
cratic king  can  be  designated,  who  else  can  he  be  than  the  Messiah, 
since  the  whole  time  after  Daniel  affords  no  other  subject,  since  he 
is  the  only  Theocratic  king,  whom  the  prophets  living  at  the  time 
of  the  exile  and  afterwards  have  predicted  as  future,  and  since,  e.  g., 
Ezekiel  (21  :  32)  expressly  says,  the  insignia  of  the  regal  dignity 
should  be  taken  away  from  Israel,  until  the  appearance  of  the  great 
object  of  promise? 

If,  then,  by  TJJ  n'K/5,  Christ  must  be  understood,  the  question 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  25.  337 

still  arises,  whether  his  birth,  or  the  time  when  he  was  consecrated 
as  n'l^D  by  the  anointing  from  above,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
terminus  ad  qucm.  The  latter  is  the  usual  supposition  of  the  Mes- 
sianic interpreters :  comp.  Petavins  1.  c.  I.  12,  c.  33,  t.  II.  p.  264 : 
"  69  hebdomades  desinant  in  Christum  ducem,  non  nascentem,  sed  in 
lucem  apertumque  prodeuntem,  seqtie  ad  oixovofilav  et  xi^gv^iv  accin- 
gentem,  h.  c.  in  baptismum  ipsius,  qui  anno  prima  septuagesimcB  heb- 
domadis  incurrit."  This  view  can  be  established  by  an  irrefragable 
proof.  After  the  course  of  70  weeks  shall  the  whole  work  of  salva- 
tion, to  be  performed  by  the  Messiah,  be  completed ;  after  69  weeks, 
and,  indeed,  as  it  appears  from  the  more  accurate  determination  in 
V.  27,  in  the  middle  of  the  70th,  he  shall  be  cut  off.  As  now,  ac- 
cording to  the  passage  before  us,  69  weeks  shall  elapse  before  the 
Messiah,  there  remains  from  that  event  to  the  completion  of  salva- 
tion only  a  period  of  7,  until  his  violent  death,  of  3  and  a  half  years; 
a  certain  proof,  that  n^K/D  li'  must  refer  not  to  his  birth,  but  to  the 
appearance  of  the  Messiah  as  such,  (comp.  Peter,  Acts  1  :  21  ;  Luke 
3:23,)  who,  indeed,  before  his  baptism  was  not  yet  the  Messiah, 
only  Jesus,  not  the  Christ. 

"Arc  seven  icecJcs  and  threescore  and  two  weeks." 

The  prophet  in  what  precedes,  "  from  the  going  forth  of  the  word 
for  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem,  until  an  Anointed  One,  a  Prince," 
had  given  one  extreme  terminus  ad  quern,  the  appearing  of  the 
Anointed  One,  and  a  terminus  medius,  forming  a  subdivision  of  this 
period,  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem.  Accordingly  he  here  desig- 
nates the  whole  distance,  "  from  the  going  forth  of  the  word,  until 
the  Anointed  One,"  by  a  twofold  determination  of  time.  69  weeks 
in  all,  shall  elapse.  7  until  the  completed  restoration  of  the  city, 
62  from  that  time  until  the  Anointed  One,  the  Prince. 

No  man  can  deny  to  this  interpretation,  —  as  Theodotion  has  it, 
fw?  Xgiaiov  rjyoi'/j.ivov  h^8ojxa8?q  sma,  aal  s/38ui.iu8sg  a^riXovTce  8vo,  and 
also  the  Vulg.,  "  usque  ad  Christum  ducem  hebdomades  septem  et  hebdo- 
mades 62  erunt,"  while  the  text  of  the  Seventy  lies  here  in  total  con- 
fusion, and  therefore  cannot  be  used, — the  advantage  of  being  easy 
and  natural.  No  one  has  ever  been  able  to  bring  an  objection  against 
it,  and  this  will  be  the  more  difficult  hereafter,  since,  according  to 
our  interpretation  of  the  words,  "  from  the  going  forth,"  &c.  the 
twofold  division  of  the  period  is  already  contained  in  these  words, 

VOL.   II.  43 


338  THE   SEVENTY   WEEKS   OF   DANIEL. 

and,  therefore,  a  twofold  determination  of  the  time  must  naturally  be 
expected.  As  a  plausible  objection  against  our  interpretation,  only 
the  Athnach  under  n^O.ti'  has  been  urged.  This  proves,  according 
to  Marsham,  that  the  two  periods  must  be  separated,  and  the  latter 
referred  to  what  follows :  "  ob  exitu  verbi  vsque  ad  Mcssiam  ducem 
sunt  hebdom.  VII.  Et  hebdomadis  62  a:dificabitur  platea  et  fossa." 
But  the  proposition,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  this  assertion, 
that  the  Athnach  must  always  stand  in  the  verse,  where  we  place 
the  greatest  point,  is  false.  It  not  unfrequently  stands,  if  the  place 
of  the  greatest  point  is  manifest  of  itself,  in  members  of  a  sentence, 
which  we  distinguish  by  a  lesser  poiut,  in  order  to  avoid  the  con- 
nexion of  those,  which  should  be  separated  from  each  other.  Thus 
it  stands,  e.  g.  in  v.  2,  under  DnDDn,  instead  of  D"3K*l',  according  to 
the  common  usage;  so,  Ps.  36  :  8,  under  DTK,  instead  of  D'riSx,  comp. 
Ps.  84  :  3,  Prov.  6  :  26.  Here,  however,  the  separation  of  the  two 
periods  was  of  greater  importance,  in  order  to  indicate  that  the  7 
and  the  62  weeks  were  not  a  mere  arbitrary  division  of  one  whole  pe- 
riod, but  that  its  own  characteristic  mark  belongs  to  each  of  the  two. 
This  view  of  Marsham's  has  been  universally  followed  by  the  recent 
non-Messianic  interpreters,  but  against  it  are  the  following  objec- 
tions. 1.  This  interpretation  presupposes  that  by  "the  Anointed, 
the  Prince,"  Cyrus  is  to  be  understood ;  an  assumption  against  which 
the  positive  reasons  deduced  for  the  reference  to  the  Messiah,  are  so 
many  negative  arguments  ;  and  hereafter,  in  the  pars  elenchtica,  it 
will  receive  a  special  refutation.  2.  If  the  second  determination  of 
time  is  referred  to  what  follows,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  interpret, 
"during  62  weeks,  the  streets  will  return  and  be  built."  But  we  thus 
obtain  a  highly  absurd  sense.  For  how  can  the  restoration  of  the 
streets,  which,  according  to  the  testimony  of  history,  followed  in  a 
much  shorter  time,  be  designated  as  extending  through  a  period  of 
434  years?  This  consideration  is  the  more  important  for  our  oppo- 
nents, since  they  maintain  a  prophecy  after  the  event.  This  diffi- 
culty is  acknowledged  by  them  to  be  such,  when  they  resort  to  an 
interpretation,  which  does  violence  to  the  language,  in  order  to  re- 
move it;  so  that  the  proof  of  the  untenableness  of  this  interpretation 
becomes  at  the  same  time  a  confession  of  its  authors,  that  their  whole 
view  of  the  prophecy  is  erroneous.  They  assert,  (comp.,  e.  g.,  Ber- 
tholdt,  p.  657,)that  the  words  wmi  D'y-'"ti'  DT^^l  stand  in  the  Accus., 
which  very  often  indicates  the  time  m,  or  within  which,  any  thing 
happens;  so  that  we  must  explain,  "  within  62  weeks."    But  it  is  evi- 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  25.  339 

dent  that  the  rule  of  Ewald,  p.  591,  —  "the  accusative  is  used  if  the 
action  belongs  to  the  whole  period  of  time.  But  if  it  is  intended  to 
show  that  the  action  falls  in  a  definite  point  of  a  larger  period,  ?,  iw, 
must  be  placed,  as  the  ablative  in  Latin,"  —  in  the  case  of  larger 
periods  of  time  is  entirely  without  exception,  and,  indeed,  that  it 
never  ceases,  as  Ewald  asserts,  to  operate  when  the  speaker  does  not 
give  the  definite  point.  From  the  passage,  Gen.  14  :  4,  rT)j?';;"K/St?'l 
DJi!;,  which  is  commonly  explained,  "in  the  thirteenth  year,"  Ewald 
(p.  592,)  has  already  freed  ns  by  the  remark,  that  we  must  rather  in- 
terpret, "  through  the  whole  thirteenth  year."  The  most  plausible 
passage  is  Jer.  28:  16,  nion  nnx  "^l'^"^,  this  year  thou  shalt  die. 
But  it  soon  appears  that  HJWn  here  belongs  to  the  comparatively  few- 
nouns  of  measure,  of  time,  &c.,  which  have  become  adverbs  by  fre- 
quent use,  (comp.  Ewald,  p.  631,)  entirely  corresponding  to  "ip.3,  nn?, 
^I^,  DTD,  3'7.l'.  nS-Sn.  The  word  njqfn,  in  the  sense  in  this  year,  not, 
as  Is.  37  :  30,  "  throughout  this  year,"  is  so  much  of  an  adverb  that  it 
can  never  be  followed  by  the  pron.  demonstr. ;  we  cannot  say  T^Wjy 
X'nn,  but  only,  as  in  Jer.  28:17  (as  it  follows  immediately  after 
n^tS^D),  ^'DD  '^J'4'^-  To  these  nouns,  partaking  of  the  nature  of  the 
adverb,  belongs  also  D">?3^,  properly  those,  who  are  future,  then  in  fu- 
ture, Is.  27  :  6.  In  like  manner  we  also  might  well  say,  "  this  day,  this 
hour.,  this  week,"  for  "  within  this  week,"  &c.,  but  not,  "  these  seven- 
ty years,"  in  any  other  sense,  than  during  this  whole  period.  There 
now  remains  for  our  opponents  only  one  way  of  escape,  to  consider 
D.'jm  D'lyjy  Q'i'3'^^  as  standing  in  the  nom.  absol.,  "  and  with  respect  to 
the  62  weeks,  so  will  the  street  be  restored,"  &c. ;  but  this  also  is  in-- 
admissible,  for  then  in  the  sentence,  "  the  street,"  &c.,  there  must 
be  a  suff.  referring  to  the  62  weeks  ;  comp.  Gesen.  Lehrg.  p.  723. 

Ch.  B.  Michaelis,  although  faithful  to  the  Messianic  interpretation, 
has  in  like  manner  been  led,  by  a  false  view  of  the  Athnach,  to 
connect  the  62  weeks  immediately  with  what  follows:  "until  the 
Messiah  are  7  weeks,  and  in  2  and  60  weeks  will  the  city  be  re- 
built ;  and,  indeed  in  the  time  of  distress."  The  restoration  of  the 
city  is  the  common  characteristic  of  both  periods  ;  the  latter  is  espe- 
cially distinguished  by,  "  in  a  time  of  distress."  This  interpretation 
avoids  only  the  former  of  the  difficulties,  which  oppose  the  preced- 
ing, the  second  remains  in  full  force,  and  its  weight  is  strengthened 
by  other  considerations.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  every  inter- 
pretation is  false,  which  gives  to  the  two  periods,  that  of  7  weeks 
and  that  of  62  weeks,  a  common  characteristic  mark,  and,  therefore 


340  THE   SEVENTY   WEEKS   OF   DANIEL. 

assumes  that  the  prophet  might  as  well  have  writtei>  C9,  instead  of 
7  and  62.  This  is,  in  general,  contrary  to  the  character  of  the 
whole  prophecy,  in  which  there  is  nothing  superfluous,  no  word 
without  meaning  ;  and  it  is,  moreover,  especially  refuted  by  the  analo- 
gy of  all  the  remaining  determinations  of  time,  which  it  contains.  To 
each  of  the  other  periods  a  definite  event  is  assigned,  which  is  com- 
pletely to  take  place  at  its  termination  ;  to  the  70  weeks,  the  finished 
introduction  of  everlasting  righteousness,  and  the  forgiveness  of  sin  ; 
to  the  62,  the  appearing  of  the  Messiah  ;  to  the  whole  70th  week, 
the  finished  confirmation  of  the  covenant;  to  the  first  half  of  the 
same,  the  abolition  of  sacrifice.  It  is  true  that  Michaelis  attributes 
in  a  measure  to  the  7  weeks  a  special  characteristic,  the  building  of 
the  city  in  a  prosperous  time  ;  but  this  character  is  by  no  means,  as 
in  the  case  of  all  the  other  periods  of  time,  expressly  contained  in 
the  text,  but  must  be  skilfully  inferred  only  from  the  antithesis  with 
in  time  uf  distress,  and,  moreover,  such  a  contrast  between  the  two 
periods  has  no  foundation  in  history.  The  first  7  weeks  also  bear 
the  character  of  a  time  of  distress,  as  the  prophecies  of  Malachi, 
which  belong -to  it,  sufficiently  prove  ;  the  favors  of  certain  Persian 
kings  do  not  argue  against,  hut  for  this  character;  since  to  be 
dependent  on  foreign  favor,  is,  for  a  people  who  have  been  free  for 
a  century,  surely  a  sign  of  a  distressing  time,  and  then  these  favors 
were  confined  to  very  narrow  limits.  To  the  second  period,  on  the 
contrary,  belong  the  victories  of  the  Maccabees,  and  the  new  nation- 
al independence  of  the  people,  so  that  the  marks  must  be  exactly 
reversed. 

".A  street  is  'restored  and  built." 

That  these  words  relate  to  the  first  of  the  two  periods  before  men- 
tioned is  already  sufficiently  clear,  if,  with  most  interpreters,  we 
consider  niJnSi  iJ'K/nS  as  an  object  of  the  command.  For  since 
each  one  of  the  two  periods  must  necessarily  have  a  definite  sign, 
and  since,  for  the  second,  the  appearing  of  the  Messiah  had  already 
been  given  as  such,  what  remains  for  the  first,  but  the  finished  execu- 
tion of  the  command,  which  makes  the  terminus  a  quo  for  the  whole 
period  of  the  69  weeks  ?  Here,  therefore,  that  only  is  expressly 
given,  which  might  be  inferred  already  from  what  precedes,  and 
there  is  less  room  for  indefiniteness,  since  in  v.  26  that  is  carried 
forward,  which   had   been  said  concerning  the  sign  of  the  second 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  25.  341 

period,  so  that  the  expression,  "the  2  and  60  weeks,"  sufficiently  in- 
dicates that  the  foregoing  belongs  to  the  7  weeks.  The  last  vestige  of 
uncertainty,  however,  vanishes,  when  the  S  in  Tprh  is  understood 
as  a  designation  of  the  first  terminus  ad  quern,  for  then  the  finished 
rebuilding  of  the  city,  in  what  precedes,  is  already  expressly  given 
as  a  mark  of  the  first  period ;  and  its  repetition  here,  as  such,  serves 
only  to  strengthen  faith  in  what  was  incredible  for  those  who  beheld 
the  ruins  of  Jerusaierfi,  and  especially  t®  subjoin  the  two  determina- 
tions, that  it  is  firmly  and  irrevocably,  settled,  and  that  it  would  come 
to  pass  in  a  time  of  distress. 

That  D-l!Z'n  here  is  not  to  be  adverbially  understood  with  several 
interpreters,  but  imports  a  return  to  the  former  condition,  appears 
from  the  relation  to  the  foregoing  3' K'hS  ;  and  that  IJinn  has  the  form- 
er of  the  only  two  meanings  in  general  belonging  to  the  verb,  street 
anA.  public  place,  —  the  others,  which  have  been  assumed  as  resting 
entirely  on  caprice,  do  not  deserve  to  be  mentioned,  —  is  evident 
from  its  connexion  with  to  build.  For  that  we  cannot  take  T\y^  with 
Hassencamp,  in  a  figurative  sense,  to  restore,  sufiiciently  appears 
from  the  reference  to  the  preceding  niJ^S,  which  can  be  taken  only 
in  a  proper  sense.  We  must  also  reject  the  interpretation  of  Coc- 
ceius  [Lex.  805),  "  ccdijicabitiir  quoad  Jorum."  For,  although  this 
construction  not  unfrequently  occurs,  (comp.  e.  g.  Is.  1  :  30,  Jer.  41  : 
5,  Ewald,  p.  545),  still  there  is  here  no  ground  to  assume  it,  since 
Dini  is  usually yi?m.,  and  it  requires  that  Jerusalem,  or  the  city,  which 
had  not  immediately  preceded,  should  be  supplied.  3in")  stands  in 
the  singular,  and  without  the  article,  to  design;ite  the  object  accord- 
ing to  its  widest  extent. 

" And  firmly  is  it  determined,  and  in  a  time  of  distress." 

With  singular  unanimity  in  error,  the  interpreters,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Hitzig,  after  the  ancient  translators,  who  plainly  sought  mere- 
ly to  cqnjecture  the  meaning  from  the  collocation  with  mn"!,  (the 
Seventy  xal  avoiy.o8onrj&riasxai  tlq  nXccTog  xal  firjxog ;  Theodotius 
nlaTiia  y.al  Tilxoq.  Vulg.  platea  et  miiri,)  refer  I'llHl  to  the  preced- 
ing. Those  among  the  recent  interpreters,  who  do  not,  like  Jahn, — 
who  derives  from  the  context,  the  sense,  a  narrower  street,  —  follow 
this  caprice,  compare  for  the  most  part  the  Chald.  ]*"'"in  to  which 
they  attribute  the  meaning,  trench.  On  the  contrary,  however, 
Michaelis  has   already  remarked,  (Suppl.  p.  951,)  that  ]*'"in  never 


342  THE    SEVENTY   WEEKS  OF   DANIEL. 

has  the  sense  ditch,  but  aqueduct,  and  that  Jerusalem,  on  account  of 
its  position,  scargely  needed  a  ditch.  But  it  is  entirely  decided  that 
a  ditch  can  be  no  object  of  the  verb  to  build,  and  that,  in  any  event, 
the.Chaldee  could  be  appealed  to,  only  when  ]"^n  in  the  Hebrew  did 
not  occur  in  any  suitable  sense.  Hassencamp  (1.  c,  p.  G6,  IT.)  ad- 
heres to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  and  endeavours  to  give  to  f-iin,  tlie  sense, 
place  of  judgment,  though  in  vain,  since  the  word  does  not  admit  of 
this  either  in  respect  to  form  or  sense,  and  since  also  "  to  build '' 
refutes  this  interpretation.  Still,  he  deserves  the  credit  of  bringing 
back  attention  to  the  Hebrew  idiom.  According  to  this,  y^iini  can 
mean  nothing  else  than,  "it  is  cut  off,"  "firmly  decreed,"  and  must 
therefore  be  separated  from  what  precedes.  The  sense  of  the  root 
yy\,  has  been  admirably  developed  by  Schultens,  on  Prov.  22  :  5. 
The  ground  meaning  is  that  o^  prcccidere,  dccidere ;  from  this  is 
derived  that  of  accurate,  precise  determination  and  decision.  In 
the  latter  it  occurs  e.  g.  1  Kings  20  :  40,  "so  is  thy  judgment," 
^I^VDr?  nnx, /«  decidisti,  secante  veliit  acie.  The  part.  pass,  ynn 
has  the  meaning,  firmly  determined.  Job  14  :  5,  yo\  □'V''"^0  CX, 
"  when  his  (man's)  days  are  cut  off"  ;  and  Is.  10  :  23,  ^Min  JV^^,  "  a 
completion  is  cut  off,  determined  by  an  irrevocable  sentence."  Joel 
4:14,  y^'Tir]  T>^.V..  stands  twice  as  the  assembling-place  of  the  mul- 
titudes of  the  people,  where  the  day  of  the  Lord  shall  be  held,  and 
the  comparison  of  v.  2  and  12,  where  the  same  place,  designated 
as  "the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  of  the  judgment  of  the  Lord,"  shows 
that  we  must  not,  with  Credner,  interpret  "  valley  of  threshing 
sledge,"  but  like  the  Seventy  (tt^c  Sixr,g),  "valley  of  judgment,"  of 
the  sententin  prcscisa  et  absuluta.  Every  doubt  of  the  employment  of 
this  idiom  in  the  passage  before  us  is  removed  by  the  occurrence  of 
y^n  in  this  prophecy  twice  more  in  the  sense,  "  to  cut  off,"  firmly 
and  irrevocably  to  determine. 

'j•n1^  and  □"'j'^^iin  pli'5  obviate  every  temptation,  which  could  dis- 
quiet the  pious  Israelites.  Present  appearances  afforded  but  a  small 
prospect  of  a  return,  and  much  less  of  a  restoration  of  the  city  in 
its  ancient  extent.  After  the  return  actually  took  place,  a  whole 
series  of  years  elapsed  in  which  the  circumstances  gave  no  hope  of 
the  restoration  of  the  city,  instead  of  which  the  Jews  were  obliged 
to  content  themselves  with  an  open  place  of  comparatively  small 
compass.  What  was  more  natural  than  the  supposition,  that  the 
promise  of  the  Lord  had  been  only  conditional,  that  it  had  been 
rendered  inoperative  by  the  sins  of  the  people  ?     This  opinion  the 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.2G.  343 

prophet  guards  against  by  the  consoling  '|''i"'ni.  Another  temptation 
must  arise  from  the  fact,  that  even  when  this  promise  was  already 
fulfilled,  the  circumstances  of  the  people  were  any  thing  but  pros- 
perous. Hence,  doubts  of  the  Omnipotence  of  God  might  easily 
arise,  as  we  see  them,  e.  g.,  so  strongly  exhibited  in  the  discourses 
of  the  ungodly  in  Malachi.  In  opposition  to  this  temptation,  piV3ii 
O'i^yT)  afforded  the  proof  that  the  times  of  distress  would  not  take 
place  without  the  knowledge  and  will  of  God,  that  it  was  not  per- 
haps something  forced  upon  him  by  another,  but  foreseen  and  pre- 
destinated by  himself 

Only  one  difficulty  rests  upon  this  interpretation,  that  it  apparent- 
ly makes,  •'  in  distress  of  the  times,"  stand  for,  "  in  a  destitute  time 
will  this  decree  be  executed."  This  very  harsh  brevity,  which  we 
are  obliged  to  assume,  as  long  as  we  refer  ynn  to  a  decree  of  God 
already  formed,  is,  however,  avoided,  as  soon  as  we  assume  that  the 
decree  is  here  only  predicted,  and  is  not  made  until  the  beginning 
of  its  execution.  This  interpretation,  philologically  necessary,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  decree  itself  falls  "in  the  times  of  distress," 
not  it  is  determined,  but  it  becomes  determined,  serves  also,  at  the 
same  time,  to  confirm  our  understanding  of  ^3T  ><vn  |p,  which  accu- 
rately corresponds  to  ]*^"in. 

Verse  2G. 

"  And  after  the  62  weeks  shall  be  extirminated  an  Anointed  One, 
and  is  not  to  him,  and  the  city,  and  the  sanctuary,  a  people  of  a 
Prince,  which  is  to  come  shall  lay  waste,  and  it  will  end  in  the 
flood,  and  until  the  end  is  war,  a  decree  of  the  ruins." 

"  A?id  after  the  62  weeks  will  on  Anointed  One  be  cut  off." 

As  the  characteristic  mark  of  the  7  weeks  had  already  been  given, 
the  prophet  now  proceeds  to  a  further  illustration  of  what  concerns 
then'j;  n^iJ'O,  whose  manifestation  he  had,  in  v.  25,  placed  in  the 
end  of  the  62  weeks,  following  the  7  weeks. 

n'^DJ,  without  a  further  addition  like  that  in  the  frequent  phrases 
irajrn  ni3J,  or  "^x^i;;;  ni;?o,  &c.  designates,  without  exception,  a  vio- 
lent mode  of  death.  Thus,  Zech.  13  :  8,  9,  it  stands  opposed  to  ^U,  as 
a  designation  of  death  by  the  sword,  while  the  latter  imports  that 
by  hunger  and  pestilence;  comp.  1  Kings  11  :  6.     Thus  is  it  the 


344  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

standing  expression  for  the  ruin  of  the  ungodly,  comp.,  e.  g.,  Ps.  37  : 
9,  Prov.  2  :  22,  which,  in  order  to  render  a  supernatural  cause  more 
manifest,  is  constantly  represented  as  violent  and  sudden. 

t?V>0,  in  accordance  with  the  whole  character  of  the  prophecy, 
is  intentionally  left  indefinite,  without  the  article  indicating  its  iden- 
tity with  the  T"::  n^K/o.  This  could  the  more  readily  happen,  since 
the  careful  and  unprejudiced  reader  could  easily  determine  this  point 
from  the  context.  As  n^t^o  of  itself  implied  a  king  of  Israel,  as  this 
designation  was  made  still  clearer  by  the  following  contrast  with  a 
Prince,  who  was  to  come,  so  must  the  reader  be  led  at  once  to  think 
of  the  Messiah,  because  prophecy  knows  no  other  king  of  Israel 
after  the  exile.  At  the  end  of  the  69  weeks  should  the  TJ3  n"'!t'D 
appear.  Who  other  than  he  could  now  well  be  thought  of,  when  here, 
in  the  further  prosecution  of  the.  subject,  the  violent  death  of  an 
Anointed  One  is  announced,  to  take  place  after  the  completion  of 
the  7  and  the  62  weeks?  The  death  of  the  Anointed  One  is  placed 
in  the  verse  before  us  in  a  causal  connexion  with  the  desolation 
of  the  city  and  the  temple,  in  like  manner  as,  v.  25,  is  his  appearance 
with  the  imparting  of  ail  the  blessings  which  had  been  promised 
in  V.  24.  How  could  one  fail  to  perceive,  that  cursing  and  blessing, 
as  they  fall  in  the  same  period,  belong  also  to  the  same  author,  that 
the  former  was  the  consequence  of  the  violent  slaying,  here  predicted 
of  the  same  Anointed  One,  who  should  bestow  the  fulness  of  the 
blessing,  and  has  actually  bestowed  it,  upon  those  who  have  received 
him,  and  allowed  themselves,  through  him.  to  confirm  the  covenant? 
And  indeed  the  more  so,  since  the  violent  death  of  the  Messiah  had 
already,  before  the  time  of  Daniel,  been  predicted  by  Isaiah,  chap. 
53,  where  (v.  8,)  the  entirely  corresponding  expression  occurs,  "  he 
has  been  cut  off  from  the  land  of  the  living,"  and  after  him,  by  Zech. 
12  :  10.  After  the  fulfilment,  all  uncertainty,  since  the  calculation 
of  the  years  might  readily  remove  it,  has  been  rendered  perfectly 
inexcusable. 

"  A7id  is  not  to  him." 

The  different  interpretations  of  these  words  fall  under  two  classes. 
Those,  in  which  an  attempt  is  made  to  give  them  a  meaning,  with- 
out assuming  an  ellipsis,  and  those  in  which  such  an  assumption  is 
made.  We  will  consider  the  former  class  first.  We  oppose  to  them 
all,  the  thesis,  "that  |>s*  has  never  any  other  meaning  than  non- 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  2fi.  345 

existence,  and  it  is  not;  J'X  only  the  latter."  It  is,  therefore,  entirely 
impossible,  without  the  assumption  of  an  ellipsis,  to  make  the  words 
bear  any  tolerable  sense. 

1.  Very  widely  diffused  among  the  older  theologians  is  the  inter- 
pretation, "  ei  non  sibi."  Vitringa,  1.  c.  p.  258  :  "  Non  adeo  sui, 
quam  aliorvm  causa,  electorum  nimirum  et  credcntium,  qui  fructu 
mortis  ipsius  gavisuri  sunt."  It  has  been  lately  defended  in  Tho- 
luck's  Litt.  Anz.  Jahrg.  1830,  p.  274.  It  is  however  to  be  rejected, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  j'N  is  never,  either  in  the  earlier  or  later 
usage,  confounded  with  xb,  but  always  distinguished  from  it  in  such 
a  manner,  that  xS  is  a  mere  negation,  |'X  denies  existence.  This 
will  readily  appear  on  a  nearer  examination  of  all  the  passages, 
which  Gesenius,  in  the  Lchrg.,  p.  830,  and  in  the  Thes.  s.  v.  has 
cited  in  favor  of  this  permutation  of  px  with  xS.  .  Exod.  3  :  2, 
l3i<  l^rx  njiprti,  we  cannot  liere  suppose  such  a  permutation  on 
account  of  the  suff.  For  how  could  a  mere  negation  have  a  suff.  ? 
735\*  is  not  Prcpt.  but  Partic.  in  Pii.  without  D,  which  is  most  fre- 
quently wanting  in  precisely  this  Conj. ;  comp.  Ewald,  p.  254.  Jer. 
38:5,  -I3T  D90>5  h^y  ^^.7:n  px--'^  is  not  to  be  explained,  "for 
the  king  cannot  avail  any  thing  against  you  "  ;  but  rather,  following 
the  accents,  with  Kimchi,  Cocceius,  Michaelis,  "  non  est  rex  is,  qui 
possit  apud  vos  vel  contra  vos  quidqnam,"  which  gives  a  much 
stronger  sense,  renders  more  prominent  the  feebleness  of  the  king, 
and  is  also  favored  by  the  position  of  the  words,  "  for  the  king  is  7tot 
he,"  which  intimates  a  contrast  of  that  which  is,  with  that  which, 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  case,  ought  to  be.  Job  35  :  15, 
13X  '\T)3  |'.X"'3  nnjM.  is  not  to  be  translated  "  sed  nunc  cum  non  ani- 
madvertat  ira  ejus,"  and  the  less  so,  because  here  the  Stat,  ahsol. 
j;x  stands,  but  rather,  "  and  now,  because  it  is  not,  his  anger  visits, 
and  he  cares  not  much  for  pride  ;  "  "  because  it  is  not,"  i.  e.  patient 
waiting  for  him,  to  which  the  speaker  exhorts  in  the  foregoing  verses, 
which  he  had  represented  as  the  duty  of  Job.  Cocceius  :  "  Homo  in 
examen  venit,  ut  probetur  ejus  spes  et  patientia.  Quando  ilia  non 
exstat,  invadit  ira  ejus,  qua  odit  et  amolitur  peccatum,  etiam  in  iis, 
quos  salvos  vult."  Ps.  135  :  17,  and  1  Sam.  21  :  9,  the  idea  of 
existence  already  contained  in  J'X,  is  made  still  more  prominent  by 
ty;.,  entirely  analogous  to  the  usual  method  of  giving  intensity  to  the 
verbal  idea,  by  placing  the  Injin.  ahsol.  before  the  finite  tense  of  the 
same  verb;  Dri'33  nn-t^;-j"}<  f]X  is,  e.  g.,  n;nJ?  xS  n^n,  &,c.: 
"  there  is  surely  no  breath  in  their  mouth; "  the  pxi  (comp.  on  this 
VOL.  n.  44 


346  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

Ewald,  p.  408,)  n^m  ^X"nnn  ns  -i?;.,  "  hast  thou  then  absolutely  no 
spear."  To  this  philological  argument,  which  is  of  itself  decisive, 
must  be  added  the  unsuitableness  of  the  sense.  For  who  is  cut  off  for 
his  own  good?  It  would  be  entirely  different  if  iS  could  signify,  "for 
his  own  sake."  For  then  would  the  death,  which  he  deserved  on  his 
own  account,  be  contrasted  with  that  endured  for  the  guilt  of  others, 
and  we  might  justly  compare  Is.  53,  where  this  thought  is  so  strong- 
ly exhibited.  2.  Others  explain  ;  "  and  nothing  is  to  him."  So 
Cocceius  :  discipiiU  dispergentur,  —  cinget  eum  coitus  malejicorum. 
Gousset,  omnia  ei  desunt.  But  the  meaning,  nothing,  however 
current  in  the  lexicons  and  commentaries,  is  falsely  attributed  to 
I'X  and  I'X.  It  does  not  deny  the  quiddity,  but  the  being.  Who- 
ever would  become  instructed  in  the  difference  between  them, 
stamped  upon  all  languages,  will  find  satisfaction  in  the  metaphysics 
of  Aristotle.  We  will  here  also  examine  in  order  the  passages,  which 
are  commonly  cited  in  proof  of  the  abovementioned  fictitious  mean- 
ing. Is.  41 :  24,  pxp  D.i:^5<t~in.,  not,  "  ye  are  less  than  nothing,"  but  "  ye 
are  less  than  non-existence,  as  if  ye  were  not ;"  40  :  17,  j;«3  D'Un  "Sd 
IIJ.j,  not,  "  all  nations  are  as  nothing,"  but  "  they  are  as  non-existence, 
as  not  existing,  before  him."  Ps.  39  :  6,  "JIAJ.  J'ND  '^.'7^,  "  my  life  is 
as  non-existence  before  thee."  Hagg.  2  :  3,  in  reference  to  the  new 
temple,  which  was  altogether  diminutive  in  comparison  with  the  for- 
mer :  D5\Ji;;?  p.'^-ji  inoD  xiSn.  Far  more  correct  than  the  modern 
interpreters,  Jerome :  "  Non  talis  est  ista,  quce  cernitur,  ut  quodam 
modo  non  esse  vidcatur  ?  "  Is  it  not,  as  if  it  were  not  ?  Exod.  22  :  2, 
"  He  shall  restore  it  (the  thief  that  which  was  stolen)  ;  i^  j'X  DX, 
so  shall  he  be  sold,  to  restore  that  which  was  stolen,  to  make  com- 
pensation." Here,  that  which  is  to  be  supplied,  is  evident  from  the 
context.  When  there  is  not  to  him,  that  whereof  he  can  make 
restitution.  2  Chron,  5 :  10,  m'nibn  \JK'  p:;  |nx3  j'x.  The  words 
|nx3  I'X  could  here,  standing  alone,  as  little  mean,  "  there  was 
nothing  in  the  ark,"  as  could  r\ri  xS.  The  ellipsis,  the  something 
else,  is  supplied  by  the  contrast.  Precisely  so,  2  Kings  17  :  18, 
n^S  HTin;  u.pw  pi  ix*i?'j  xS.  From  this  passage  we  might  conclude, 
that  nS  means  nothing,  with  the  same  right  as  from  the  foregoing 
that  px  has  this  meaning.  Ps.  19  :  7,  '^y}Q\  yi<.  is  plainly  not  to  be 
explained  with  Gesenius,  "  there  is  nothing  concealed,"  but  "  there 
exists  not  a  thing  concealed."  Exod.  8:0;  •iJ'rl'^x  T^iT\\2  px,  Gesen- 
ius explains,  "  nihil  (st  sicut  Jehovah  dciis  nostcr."  But  that  which 
is  to  be  supplied  after  "  there  is  not  as  the  Lord  our  God,"  is  suffi- 


INTERPRRTATIOiN.  — V.  20.  347 

ciently  determined  by  the  antithesis.  Nothing,  is  by  no  means  suit- 
able, since  the  God  of  Israel  is  designed  to  be  especially  compared 
with  the  idols  of  other  nations;  comp.  9:  14.  —  px  accordingly 
means  nothing,  just  as  little  as  Wl  something.  It  is  scarcely  con- 
ceivable how  this  error  could  have  gained  such  general  currency. 
To  whom  did  it  ever  occur,  to  assert  that  in  Arabic  (J^^S*  may 
mean  also,  by  way  of  permutation,  "there  is  nothing"?  Who  would 
venture  to  remark,  that  in  English,  we  often  use  to  he  and  nut  to  he, 
for  something  and  nothing"^.  3.  Others,  as  L'Empereur  {AdJncchiad. 
p.  191),  and  lately  Sack  (Apol.  p.  288)  and  Hitzig,  explain,  "and 
no  one  is  to  him."  But  that  j'N  could  ever  mean  no  one  is,  or  no 
one,  is  as  great  an  error  as  the  one  just  refuted.  j'X  serves  as  a 
paraphrase  of  no  man,  no  one,  only  when  the  person  is  afterwards 
mentioned  ;  e.  g.  "  it  is  not  one,  who  terrifies,"  Tinn  pN.  From  this 
it  does  not  follow,  that  |'N  could  mean,  "  there  is  no  one."  The  one 
lies  here  in  the  word  T'"?nn.  So  all  the  examples  in  Gesenius, 
1  Sam.  9:4,  "  they  went  through  the  land  Schalaim,  \\ii\,  and  were 
not ;"  not  "  no  one  was."  The  subject,  the  she  asses,  is  left  out  for 
the  sake  of  brevity,  just  as  the  object  is  in  the  preceding  and  follow- 
ing INVD  xSn.  This,  however,  can  be  done  only  when,  as  there,  the 
subject  or  object  has  been  already  designated,  —  what  they  found 
not,  could  be  nothing  else  than  what  the  writer  had  previously 
designated  as  the  object  of  their  search,  —  the  she  asses.  The 
example,  therefore,  has  no  application  to  the*  passages  before  us. 
Had  the  prophet  wished  to  express  the  sense  assumed  in  this  expla- 
nation, he  would  have  written  inx  after  y^,  just  as,  10  :  21,  in^  |''X] 
'SI!  P).Dr>P-  4.  Ch.  B.  Michaelis  and  Sostmann  explain  :  "  non  crit 
sibi,  non  amplius  inter  viventcs  reperieturJ'  But  px  never  includes 
the  person  ;  it  does  not  mean,  "  he  is  not,"  but  "  it  is  not."  Should 
this  sense  be  allowed,  instead  of  px,  as  in  the  passages  which  are 
cited  as  parallel,  like  Gen.  5  :  24,  ^ly^  must  necessarily  stand.  And, 
moreover,  the  reference  of  an  action  or  a  passion  to  the  dative  pro- 
noun, intimating  the  subject,  is  suitable  only  where  the  discourse 
has  a  predominant  subjective  character,  comp.  e.  g.  Ezek.  37  :  11  ; 
but  not  here,  where  directly  the  opposite  is  the  case. 

It  is  therefore  certain,  that  the  words  are  not  complete  in  them- 
selves, and  that  something  must  be  supplied.  This  was  seen  by  all 
the  ancient  translators  without  exception  In  none  of  them  do  we 
find  either  of  the  four  abovementioned  false  interpretations  of  px. 
They  differ  from  each  other,  only  either  like  Aquila  {f^oXo&Qsv&^ai- 


348  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

Tttt  rjXsififiivog  y.al  ovx  I'aiiv  uvtm,)  and  Symm.  {iy.y.oni'^aErai  XgiOTog 
xal  ovx  vTidg^si  amw,)  and  the  Syriac,  in  imitating  the  indefiniteness 
of  the  text,  or,  like  the  Seventy  and  the  Vulg.,  in  supplying  the 
ellipsis  in  the  translation. 

It  is  therefore  self-evident,  that  what  is  to  be  supplied  should  be 
taken  only  from  what  immediately  precedes,  and  that  all  interpreta- 
tions, in  which  this  is  not  done,  are  entirely  capricious,  and  cannot 
receive  our  concurrence.  In  this  respect  Bertholdt  has  the  most 
widely  erred  by  his,  "  he  will  have  no  successor  out  of  his  family." 
The  lot  of  those  is  truly  to  be  lamented,  who,  occupying  themselves 
with  the  explanation  of  Scripture,  impart  such  capricious  views. 
Their  employment  is  mere  guess-work,  which  can  never  be  certain 
whether  it  has  hit  upon  that  which  is  correct.  More  tolerable  is  the 
explanation  of  numerous  interpreters  "  there  is  to  him  no  helper," 
because  what  is  then  to  be  supplied  is  of  wider  extent,  and  therefore 
easier  to  be  conjectured.  This  is  true  also,  for  another  reason,  of 
the  explanation  of  several  after  the  Severity,  "judicium  non  erit  ei, 
I,  e.  crimen  quod  judicium  promcruit,"  because  there  is  some  ground 
for  the  suspicion  of  what  is  to  be  supplied,  in  "  he  shall  be  cut  off," 
which  not  unfrequently  occurs  of  the  punishment  of  evil  doers. 

If  we  seek  to  supply  that  which  is  wanting  out  of  the  foregoing, 
it  must  be  something  which  belongs  to  the  anointed,  as  such.  As 
"  he  will  be  cut  off"  expresses  the  extinction  of  his  personal  exist- 
ence, so  must  "  and  is  not  to  him  "  express  the  extinction  of  his 
possession,  and  that  not  an  accidental  one,  but  that  which  consti- 
tutes his  essential  characteristic.  What  this  is,  in  respect  to  an 
Anointed  One,  a  Prince,  cannot  in  itself  be  doubtful,  and  appears 
plainly  enough  from  Ezek.  21  :  32;  VP^r\}^  i3DB'*f!ri  I'S  "iti/N  kd  n;r, 
"  until  He  comes,  to  whom  the  judgment  (the  dominion)  is,  and  I 
give  it  to  him."  That  the  dominion  is  to  him,  is  here  the  charac- 
teristic of- the  Messiah,  as  King.  1  Sam.  10  :  1  ;  Samuel  says  to 
Saul,  "  The  Lord  has  anointed  thee  over  his  inheritance  for  a 
Prince."  The  characteristic  mark  of  an  anointed  one  was,  there- 
fore, to  be  a  Prince  over  God's  inheritance,  over  Israel.  This  mark 
vanished,  the  dominion  of  the  anointed  over  his  people  was  destroy- 
ed, when  by  their  crime  he  was  violently  put  to  death.  As  to  the 
sense,  therefore,  the  Vulgate  is  entirely  correct:  "  c?  non  erit  ejus 
populus,  qui  eum  negaturus  est."  And  Jahn  errs  only  in  supplying 
the  unnatural  uy,  people.  The  correctness  of  the  above  interpreta- 
tion  is  strikingly  confirmed   by  what   follows.     With   the  negative 


INTERPRETATION  —v.  2G.  349 

consequence  of  the  cutting  off  of  the  Messiah,  the  cessation  of  his 
dominion  over  the  covenant  people,  the  positive,  the  desolation  of 
the  city  and  sanctuary  by  people  of  a  prince,  who  should  come,  is 
well  connected  ;  just  as  in  Zech.,  chap.  11,  after  the  Messiah,  hin- 
dered in  the  execution  of  the  pastoral  office  by  the  resistance  of  the 
people,  has  relinquished  it  and  broken  his  shepherd's  staff,  the  poor 
flock  is  given  up  without  rescue  to  the  greatest  misery,  and  the 
whole  land  is  overflowed  with  enemies,  who  have  hitherto  been  re- 
strained only  by  the  invisible  power  of  the  good  Shepherd  and  King. 

"  And  the  city  and  the  sanctuary,  people  of  a  Prince,  who  comes, 
will  lay  waste." 

Several  interpreters,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Jahn,  have  supposed, 
that  by  TJJ  here  the  same  is  to  be  understood,  who  had  before  been 
called  TJJ  n'lyn  and  n'l^'O,  appealing  to  the  fact,  that  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  in  the  New  Testament  is  commonly  attributed  to 
Christ.  But  that  this  is  erroneous,  that  by  Tn  rather  a  heathen, 
and,  as. the  result  showed,  a  Roman  Prince,  and  by  "people,"  not 
indeed,  as  it  is  commonly  translated,  "  the  people,"  his  host,  is  desig- 
nated, appears  from  the  following  reasons.  1.  Even  the  bare  TJi, 
while  the  Messiah  had  been  designated  by  TJ]  H'^yn,  and  n't^n,  leads 
to  an  antithesis,  and  does  not  allow  us  to  think  of  any  other  than  a 
Gentile  Prince.  2.  This  antithesis  is  expressed  as  plainly  as  possi- 
ble by  X3n  subjoined  to  T'JJ,  which  serves  as  directly  to  render  more 
definite  this  TJJ,  as  one  who  was  to  come  from  without,  as  n't^D 
serves  this  purpose,  in  reference  to  the  former.  This  use  of  N3n,  to 
express  a  stricter  definition  and  a  contrast,  is  proved  by  its  gram- 
matical relation  to  T^lJ,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Messiah,  the  gram- 
matical connexion  of  the  two  names  H'tyn  and  n'JJ,  the  position  of 
the  former,  before  the  latter,  which  is  afterwards  used  alone,  clearly 
expresses  the  same  purpose.  We  must  not,  as  is  commonly  done, 
translate  N3n  TJ],  "of  a  coming  Prince,"  but  rather,  "of  a  Prince, 
who  comes."  The  article  forbids  us  to  join  X3n,  as  an  adjective,  with 
TJJ.  As  the  rule,  that  a  noun  rendered  definite  by  an  article  can- 
not take  an  indefinite  adjective,  is  entirely  without  exception  ;  so 
also  is  the  rule,  that  no  indefinite  noun  can  be  joined  with  a  definite 
adjective.  It  is  true,  that  even  Ewald  (p.  626)  asserts,  that  such  an 
anomaly  is  sometimes  found  in  later  books ;  but  the  examples  cited 
in  its  favor  all  belong  to  that  class,  which  he  designates  in  the  note, 


350  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

probably  subjoined  at  a  later  period,  as  a  different  one :  "when  the 
substantive  is  actually  undetermined,  the  adjective  renders  distinct- 
ly prominent  a  class,  Ps.  104  :  18,  '  mountains,  the  high.'  The 
adjective  has  then  the  sense,  '  which  is.'  "  This  is  so  very  evident 
(who  does  not  see,  e.  g.,  that  (Zech.  4  :  7,)  Snjrt  in  is  not  to  be 
translated  "  the  great  mountain,"  but  "  mountain,  thou  great," 
which  is  far  more  emphatic  than  the  former  1)  as  to  need  no 
farther  proof.  "  A  Prince,  who  comes,"  accordingly  alludes  to 
another  prince,  who  was  already  present,  to  a  native  king,  and  as 
such,  the  Messiah  had  been  previously  mentioned.  X13  is  in  Daniel, 
particularly  in  chap.  11,  (comp.  e.  g.  v.  13,  16,  21,  40,  41,)  the 
standing,  constantly  recurring  expression  for  a  journey  to  a  foreign 
land  in  general,  and  especially  for  the  foreign  expeditions  of  con- 
quering kings. 

Several  interpreters  join  N3n  not  to  TJi,  but  to  GV_,  "people  of  a 
Prince,  that  come."  But  this  interpretation  is  refuted  by  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  X|n  is  plainly  designed  to  distinguish  the  person 
of  a  certain  prince,  from  that  of  another.  In  respect  to  the  people, 
such  a  distinction,  which  the  article  in  X3ri  shows  to  have  been 
intended,  would  be  entirely  inadmissible,  since  in  the  whole  prophe- 
cy (the  omission  of  the  article  shovvs  that  D;;  has  the  sense,  people, 
according  to  the  connexion,  warriors,)  there  is  nothing  said  of  a 
domestic  host. 

"  And  it  loill  end  in  the  Jlood." 

The  question  arises,  to  what  the  suff.  in  v:fp  is  to  be  referred. 
Several  recent  interpreters  suppose,  to  the  heathen  prince.  But  this 
supposition  is,  according  to  both  its  modifications,  to  be  rejected. 
The  one,  "  Devastatio,  quom  populus  ilk  venturus  exercebit,  tanta 
erit,  quanta  devastatio,  quam  inundatio  efficit,  i.  e.  maxima,"  is 
liable  to  the  objection,  that  v^p  in  general  cannot  be  understood 
actively,  and,  particularly  in  Daniel,  is  used  only  to  signify  the  end 
which  any  one  suffers  ;  comp.  1 1  :  45.  The  other,  according  to 
which  the  end  of  the  Prince  himself  is  here  predicted,  has  the  whole 
context  against  it ;  since,  in  what  follows,  the  description  of  the 
desolations  is  carried  forward,  which  are  to  proceed  from  this  same 
Prince,  whose  destruction  is  here  supposed  to  be  foretold,  and  since 
the  following  Vp ,  which  stands  in  manifest  relation  to  lifp,  refers  to 
the  covenant  people,  and  the  holy  land  ;  but  of  an  overthrow  of  the 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  20.  35 1 

conqueror,  there  is  not,  in  what  follows,  the  slightest  trace  ;  so  that, 
referred  to  him,  the  words  would  seem  to  have  been  placed  in  the 
text  at  random. 

By  far  the  greatest  number  of  interpreters  refer  the  suff.  to  that, 
whose  devastation  and  entire  desolation  is  predicted  in  what  pre- 
cedes and  follows.  These,  however,  differ  from  each  other  in  its 
grammatical  interpretation.  Several,  as  Geier,  refer  the  suff.  to  the 
city  and  temple,  where,  however,  we  should  rather  expect  the  plural. 
Others,  as  Sostmann,  merely  to  the  temple,  though  we  cannot  see, 
why  this  only  should  be  made  prominent,  since  in  what  precedes, 
and  immediately  follows,  both  city  and  temple  are,  at  the  same  time, 
the  subject  of  discourse.  The  correct  view  was  taken  by  Vitringa 
and  Ch.  B.  Michaelis  :  "  Et  finis  ejus  rei,  quod  nempc  urbem  ac 
tcniplum  populiis  duels  vtnturi  sit  vastaturus."  Examples  of  a  sim- 
ilar reference  of  the  suff., —  no  less  than  of  the  proti.  sep.,  comp. 
e.  g.  the  Nin,  in  reference  to  a  whole  preceding  proposition,  Zech, 
11  :  11,  iet.  32  :  6-8,  —  not  to  a  definite  preceding  noun,  but  to 
the  subject  itself,  are  not  unfrequent,  e.  g.  Ezek.  18 :  26,  "  When 
the  righteous  turns  away  from  his  righteousness,  and  doeth  iniquity, 
and  dies,  Drj''Sy ,  on  that  account,"  viz.  because  he  has  forsaken 
righteousness,  and  practised  unrighteousness.  Is.  64  :  4 ;  "  Behold, 
thou  art  wroth,  for  we  have  sinned  ;  dSi;*  Dri3,  in  them,"  the  sin  and 
the  anger,  "  are  we  now  already  an  eternity."  Prov.  14  :  13,  nnnnx, 
finis  ejus  rei,  viz.  when  any  one  laughs.  In  Ps.  81,  so  greatly 
misunderstood  by  recent  interpreters,  on  account  of  its  exclusive 
reference  to  the  passover,  it  is  said,  v.  26,  ''for  a  testimony  in  Israel, 
has  he  placed  it,'-'  the  celebration  of  his  festival  with  the  praise  and 
thanksgiving  recommended  in  what  precedes,  lOK^ ;  comp.  other  ex- 
amples, as  Exod,  10  :  11,  Josh.  2  :  4,  in  Ewald,  p.  645. 

The  3  in  ^t5^5  is  taken  by  several  as  the  so  called  Beth  essenfice: 
"  his  end  will  be  an  overflowing."  Were  it  ^yti'D,  this  interpreta- 
tion might,  in  the  main,  be  justified,  although  the  so  called  Beth 
essenticB,  as  it  is  commonly  understood,  is  a  mere  fiction  of  the 
grammarians.  5  often  stands  when  the  relation  of  the  particular 
to  the  general  is  to  be  indicated,  since,  as  a  part,  it  belongs  to  its 
whole.  So,  e.  g.,  Ps.  39:7,  "Only  in  the  shadow,  D'p.V^,  does 
man  walk."  The  walking  of  man  belongs  to  the  general  category 
of  the  shadow.  Ps.  42  :  11 ;  "  In  a  murder,  riinn,  in  my  bones 
mine  enemies  reproach  me."  The  geuus  for  the  species.  The 
reproach  is  the  murder  in  the  bones,  the  murder  which  pierces  to 


.352  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

the  inmost  bones.  Ps.  7S  :  55 ;  "  He  caused  them  to  fall,  nSn;  h^T}A, 
as  an  inheritance."  And  thus  "^MV/^  li'D  would  mean,  "the  end 
of  the  desolation  "  belongs  to  the  general  category  of  the  overflow- 
ing. Michaelis  :  "  Vastatio  ilia  circa  extrema  instur  diluvii  erit, 
ita  ut  minis  omnia  obniat,  quemadinodum  inundatio  longe  laleque 
grassans,  quidquid  ei  obviani  erit,  puuidatur  ac  sternit."  But  this 
whole  view  is  completely  disproved  by  the  article  in  '\^.'^2,  which 
has  been  strangely  overlooked  by  interpreters.  This  shows,  that 
the  subject  of  discourse  is  one  particular  and  definite  flood,  and 
indeed,  such  an  one  as  had  been  already  mentioned  in  the  preced- 
ing context.  The  flood,  therefore,  can  be  only  a  figurative  designa- 
tion of  the  warlike  expedition  inundating  the  land,  which  had  been 
spoken  of  immediately  before,  and  the  sense  only,  "  the  desolation 
of  city  and  temple,"  will  not  be  merely  partial  or  transient,  but  be 
completed  during  this  same  expedition,  which  may  be  compared  to 
a  great  inundation.  This  explanation  is  confirmed  by  the  usage  of 
Daniel  elsewhere,  in  which  warlike  expeditions  are  compared  to  a 
flood.  Thus  11  :  12;  "And  the  arms  of  the  inundation,  •"]Qi^n,  the 
Egyptian  hosts,  which  had  previously  done  so  much  mischief  to 
others,  shall  be  overwhelmed  by  him  and  destroyed."  V.  26  ;  iVni 
f]lt3!i'''.,  his  host,  i.e.  the  host  of  Anliochus,  will  overflow;  comp. 
V.  40,  Nah.  1  :  8,  Jer.  47  :  2. 

It  now  appears  still  more  clearly,  how  inadmissible  is  the  refer- 
ence of  these  words  to  the  heathen  prince,  and  especially  as  the 
recent  interpreters  suppose,  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  For,  did  he 
meet  his  end  in  the  same  expedition,  in  which  he  laid  waste  the 
city  and  temple  ?  The  force  of  this  argument  appears  from  the 
circumstance,  that  even  such  interpreters  as  Hitzig,  who  have  made 
the  grammatical  interpretation  their  chief  object,  and  who  therefore 
can  scarcely  be  supposed  to  have  committed  an  oversight,  have  felt 
compelled  to  disregard  the  article.  He  remarks,  1.  c.  p.  150 ;  "  He 
(Ant.  Epiph.),  found  an  end  in  a  military  expedition,  for  which  ^^.\i^ 
is  figuratively  used."  There  is  rather  here  a  plain  antithesis  with 
the  oppression  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Of  this  Daniel  never 
prophecies,  without  at  the  same  time  announcing  its  end.  Chap. 
11  :  36,  it  is  said  of  him;  "And  he  is  prosperous,  until  the  anger 
is  completed."  This  oppression,  therefore,  is  notn^|"nj?  (11  :  25); 
it  first  reaches  its  end  with  the  end  of  its  object.  This  is  here 
expressly  asserted,  and  appears  also  from  the  fact,  that  the  prophe- 
cy closes  with  the  threatening  of  the  entire  ruin  of  the  city  and 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  26.  353 

temple,  excluding  a  mere  partial  desolation  by  the  expression  itself, 
and  containing  not  the  smallest  allusion  to  a  restoration. 

"  And  unto  the  end  is  toar,  a  decree  of  ruins." 

Interpreters  mostly  unite  these  words  in  one  sentence,  "  and  until 
the  end  of  the  war  is  a  decree  of  ruins."  We,  however,  prefer  the 
view  expressed  in  the  translation,  because  the  manifest  reference 
of  ]'p.  to  the  foregoing  li'p  is  more  natural  in  the  end  of  the  whole 
transaction  ;  because  riDn'7D  has  no  article,  as  it  must  have,  if  the 
subject  of  discourse  were  the  definite  war  mentioned  before,  pre- 
cisely like  '^y'k^'  ;  because  it  designates  the  definite  flood  predicted  in 
the  preceding  verse  ;  and  then,  moreover,  because  the  decree  of  ruins 
has  its  terminus  a  quo  rather  than  its  terminus  ad  quern  in  the  end 
of  the  war,  a  difBculty,  which  these  interpreters  obviate  only  by 
the  inadmissible  rendering  of  mnati'  by  devastations.  The  sense  is, 
"  the  war,  and  the  decree  of  ruins,  will  terminate  only  with  the 
end  of  the  object."  It  is  not  a  transient,  hostile  oppression,  which  is 
here  treated  of,  like  that,  e.  g.,  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
but  such  an  one  as  Avould  cause  utter  destruction  to  the  city  and 
the  temple. 

As  to  the  form,  npnj  can  be  stat.  ahsol.  like  niDDJ,  Zech.  11  :  9; 
comp.  Ewald,  p.  346.  But  as  it  elsewhere,  when  in  the  stat.  ahsol., 
always  has  the  form  'r\%-}m  (comp.  Is.  10:  23,  28  :  22),  as  this  form 
occurs  not  only  chap.  11  :  30,  but  also  in  the  prophecy  before  us, 
V.  27,  as  this  participle  in  Niphal  always  has  the  force  of  a  substan- 
tive, the  cut  off,  viz.  sentence,  probably  a  designation  of  a  firm  and 
irrevocable  decision,  borrowed  from  the  judicial  language  (see  on 
V.  27),  it  is  best  to  understand  it  with  the  Syriac,  Geier,  Hassen- 
camp,  Hitzig,  as  stat.  constr. 

niODtJ^,  according  to  its  very  derivation  as  a  participle  of  the  in- 
transitive verb  DOti^  (comp.  on  v.  27),  can  mean  nothing  but  loca 
vastata,  ruincB,  by  no  means  devastations,  in  an  active  sense.  This 
is  confirmed  also  by  the  usage  of  the  language.  It  is  found  in  this 
chapter  itself.  V.  18  :  "  Behold  our  desolations,"  irnbniy.  In 
Ezek.  36 :  4,  it  is  combined  as  an  adjective  with  n'i^'^n,  and  in  Is. 
61 :  4,  it  twice  stands  with  it  in  the  parallelism.  It  never,  even  in 
appearance,  assumes  the  nature  of  an  abstract.  The  "  decree  of 
the  ruins  "  is  the  decree  to  which  the  ruins  in  so  far  belong,  as  they 
are  caused  by  it. 

VOL.  II.  45 


354  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

Remarkable  is  the  reference  in  which  these  last  words  stand  to 
the  close  of  v.  25,  indicated  by  the  use  of  the  verb  y^n,  in  both 
passages.  By  an  irrevocable  decree  of  God,  will  the  city,  now  lying 
in  ruins,  be  rebuilt ;  by  an  equally  irrevocable  decree,  will  it  again 
sink  in  ruins. 

Verse  27. 

'*  And  one  week  will  strengthen  the  covenant  with  many,  and  the 
half  of  the  week  will  cause  to  cease  sacrifice  and  meat  offering,  and 
over  the  summit  of  abomination  comes  the  destroyer,  and,  indeed, 
until  that  which  is  completed  and  cut  off  shall  drop  upon  that  v;hich 
is  laid  waste." 

"  A7id  one  loeek  ivill  confirm  the  covenant  with  many.'^ 

Several  interpreters  take  as  the  subject  of  "I'^^n  the  Messiah, 
others  the  heathen  prince.  Both  are  equally  erroneous,  since  the 
mention  of  neither  had  immediately  preceded.  The  subject  is  rather 
the  weclc.  Theodotion  :  xott  dvvai.itoosi  dia&-)jy.i]v  nolloiq  e^8oiJ.ag  ^la. 
And  we  have  here  an  instance  of  the  frequent  idiom,  according  to 
which,  that  which  happens  in  a  place  or  a  time  is  attributed  to  it  as 
an  action  ;  comp.  in  reference  to  the  former,  e.  g.,  Ps.  65  :  4 ;  "  The 
hills  exult,  the  valleys  rejoice."  In  reference  to  the  latter,  Mai.  3  :  19  ; 
"  The  day  that  cometh  shall  burn  them  up."  Job  3:3;  "  The  night 
which  said,  a  man  is  conceived."  V.  10,  where  the  night  is  cursed, 
"  because  it  shut  not  up  the  doors  of  the  womb."  30  :  17  ;  "  The 
night  pierces  my  bones,"  See  abundant  examples,  from  Arabian 
writers,  in  Schultens,  p.  41 ;  in  other  writers,  by  Gronov.  Observv. 
1,  1.  Chap.  2. 

Some  interpreters,  (lastly  Scholl,  1.  c.  p.  20,  24,)  maintain,  that 
the  "  one  week "  is  not  to  be  so  connected  with  the  preceding  69, 
as  though  it  immediately  belonged  to  them,  that  the  discourse  is 
only  of  a  hehdomas  qucepiam,  which  must  not  indeed  vary  too  far 
from  the  remaining  69.  This  "one  week"  is  that,  at  the  end  of 
which  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  falls.  But  it  is  easy  to  see,  that 
this  supposition  did  not  spring  from  an  impartial  investigation  of  the 
text,  but  from  a  difficulty  arising  from  a  comparison  of  the  prophecy 
and  fulfilment.  Vitringa,  since  whose  time  the  interpretation  of 
this   prophecy,  after  having  made  no  small  progress,   has,  on  the 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  27.  355 

whole,  only  declined,  furnishes  us,  in  the  Hypotyposis  HisioricB  et 
Chronol.  sacrcc,  with  a  guiding  thread,  the  value  of  which  is  still 
undiminished.  Among  the  leading  principles  for  the  interpretation 
of  this  prophecy,  he  says  (p.  104)  :  "  Tcmpus  illud  LXX.  hebdoma- 
darinn,  s.  490  annorum,  prcBnvntiari  tanquam  quod  continua  et  non 
intcrrupta  scric  decursurum  csset.  ab  initio  usque  ad  terminum  sivc 
complnnhntnm  suiim,  tarn  rcspectu  totius  hvjus  tempons  LXX.  hcb- 
domadarnm,  quam  ra^pectu  partium,  in  quas  hm  hebd.  dividitntur, 
hebd.  7,  62  et  unius  licbdomadoi."  What  indeed  can  be  clearer  than 
this  proposition  1  Precisely  70  weeks  in  all  are  to  elapse  :  how 
then,  without  the  most  unrestrained  caprice,  can  we  assume  a  not 
inconsiderable  intermediate  period  between  the  (S^  and  the  one, 
v/hich,  together,  plainly  make  up  these  seventy  ?  Who  that  proceeds 
in  such  an  arbitrary  manner,  can  still  continue  to  lay  any  stress  on 
the  chronological  proof  of  the  agreement  of  prophecy  and  fulfilment? 
Whoever  takes  to  himself  this  liberty  must  also  grant  it,  and  can 
make  no  objection  if  another  chooses,  e.  g.,  to  insert  between  the  7 
and  the  62;  a  dozen  intercalary  weeks.  What,  however,  especially 
refutes  this  supposition,  is,  that  it  cannot  point  out  in  the  week 
which  it  assumes,  the  characteristic  mark  of  this  last  week,  the  con- 
firmation of  the  covenant.  For  in  the  time  of  the  Roman  invasion, 
where  were  those  mighty  demonstrations  of  mercy,  which  were  such 
a  confirmation  of  the  covenant,  as  to  render  it  proper  to  give  promi- 
nence to  them  alone,  and  pass  over  in  silence  those,  which  belonged 
to  the  actual  seventieth  week,  as  well  as  the  week  itself?  The 
advocates  of  this  interpretation  would  gladly  free  themselves  from 
this  objection,  by  regarding  the  one  week  to  which  the  confirmation 
belongs,  as  the  actual  70th,  and  only  the  following  half  week  as 
lying  without  the  cycle  of  the  70,  and  embracing  the  time  of  the 
Jewish  war.  But  here  a  fatal  objection  intervenes,  the  article  in 
j.'OK'n,  which  does  not  allow  us  to  think  of  the  half  of  a  week  in 
general,  but  only  of  the  half  of  the  definite,  before-mentioned  week. 

This  false  view  has  been  occasioned  by  the  opinion,  that  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  must  necessarily  be  drawn 
within  the  circle  of  the  chronological  determinations  of  the  prophe- 
cy ;  an  opinion,  which  led  the  sagacious  Scaliger  to  the  most  forced 
assumptions,  while  Vitringa,  1.  c.  adopts  the  sound  canon  :  "  Termi- 
nnri  has  hebdomadns  in  triennio  illn,  quod  moitem  Jcsu  Christ prox- 
ime  ercepit,  qua;  nimirvm  Jcsu  Chrisii  mors  incidere  dcbuit  in  medium 
hcbdomadcB  ultima;,  post   7  et  62  hebd.  jam   clapsas."     That  this 


356  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

opinion  is  entirely  destitute  of  support,  we  shall  see  when  we  come 
to  explain  "  the  half  of  the  week  will  cause  sacrifice  and  meat 
offering  to  cease." 

That  T^^n  has  the  meaning  to  mahe  strong,  to  strengthen,  and 
that  we  must  not,  with  Bertholdt,  p.  066,  invent  for  it  another,  ap- 
pears from  the  derivation,  the  use  of  Piel,  e.  g.  Zech.  10:6-  12, 
and  of  Hiph.  in  the  only  passage  where  it  occurs  besides,  Ps.  12  :  6, 
T'ajJ  ^ywh'^,  "  to  our  tongues  will  v/e  impart  strength  ;  we  will  so 
arm  them  with  lies  and  calumnies,  that  no  man  shall  be  able  to  resist 
us."  This  interpretation  is  the  only  one,  that  is  philologically  cor- 
rect, and  completely  suits  the  parallelism.  I'^jn  has  there,  also,  the 
meaning  corruboravit,  only  with  a  certain  modification,  which  the 
construction  with  '?  has  occasioned.  The  same  modification  is 
found  so  often  in  Hiph.  that  it  would  seem  it  may  be  employed  in 
all  verbs.  Thus,  e.  g.,  D'lVri,  with  the  accus.^  "  to  make  righteous," 
with  S,  "to  impart  righteousness";  nnin,  with  the  accus.,  "to 
praise,"  with  ^,  "  to  impart  praise,"  &c. 

The  omission  of  the  article  in  n'13  shows,  that  r\""i5  T^J.n  corre- 
sponds with  "to  confirm  a  covenant"  in  English,  and  that  we  must 
not,  with  several  interpreters,  take  n'"!?  as  a  definite  designation  of 
the  already  e.xisting  covenant,  n"''!3ri,  which  should  be  confirmed 
and  glorified  by  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah ;  on  the  contrary, 
nothing  whatever  is  here  said,  as  to  whether  the  covenant  is  one 
already  existing,  or  one  entirely  new.  (Comp.,  e.  g.,  Hassencamp, 
p.  81.)  The  indefiniteness  belongs,  indeed,  only  to  the  expression. 
As  to  the  matter  of  fact,  the  language  as  it  now  stands  is  far  more 
emphatic,  than  Ts^'^,'^  D'pn  in  the  antithesis  with  the  quality  of  the 
previous  covenant,  which,  because  not  confirmed  by  such  illustrious 
manifestations  of  the  divine  mercy  as  now  appear,  must  be  consid- 
ered as  weaker  in  reference  to  that  now  to  be  concluded,  and  which 
rests  on  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  imparting  of  the  everlasting 
righteousness,  and  the  anointing  of  a  holy  of  holies.  Finally, 
throughout  the  whole  book,  nna  occurs  only  of  the  covenant  of  God 
with  Israel,  which  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  refute,  what  is  liable  to  so 
many  objections,  the  explanation  of  Bertholdt,  of  a  covenant  which 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  had  made  with  apostates  from  among  the 
covenant  people. 

The  article  in  Q'?lS  must  not  be  overlooked,  as  it  has  been  uni- 
formly by  interpreters.  It  shows  that  the  discourse  is  not  concern- 
ing manv   in  general,  but  definitely  concerning  those,  who  were 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  27.  357 

manifest  to  the  reader,  from  the  circumstances  of  the  discourse,  as 
definite  in  their  kind  (coinp.  Evvald,  p.  567).  Such  a  definiteness, 
however,  can  be  derived  only  from  v.  24.  The  imparting  of  all  the 
blessings,  which  the  prophet  there  promises,  he  here  embraces  in 
one  comprehensive  expression,  "  to  confirm  a  covenant "  ;  and  that 
he  does  this,  he  shows  by  representing  the  objects  of  the  confirma- 
tion, as  those,  who  do  not  here  first  come  forward,  but  are  already 
known  from  what  precedes,  and  who  were  the  objects  of  the  former 
gracious  promises. 

That  here,  as  in  chap.  24,  that  only  is  spoken  of,  which  the  Mes- 
siah should  vouchsafe  to  the  believers  from  among  the  Jews,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  occasion  of  the  prophecy.  Daniel  was  moved  to  make 
intercession,  by  his  concern,  lest  the  Lord  would  entirely  reject 
Israel,  on  account  of  his  sins.  What,  therefore,  was  more  natural, 
than  that  the  divine  answer  should  embrace  only  what  was  suited 
to  remove  this  concern  1 

We  give  the  admirable  paraphrase  of  the  words  by  Vitringa,  Ohss. 
t.  II.  p.  258:  "  Habehit  tamcn  cleus  intei'ca  rationem.  dcctorum,  bene 
multorum,  y.ax  (-/.loy^v  /«'^iTO?  servandorum,  quibus  a  Christo  et 
apostolis  ejus  foedus  diviiKs  gratice  expondur,  illustribus  tarn  miracu- 
lis,  quam  danis  spir.  sancti  inter  illos  confirmandum  ct  obsignandum, 
per  7  potissimum  aiinos,  ducendos  a  tempore,  quo  dominus  munus 
suum  publicum  infer  Judceos  auspicatus  fucrit.'^ 
■♦ 

"  And  the  half  of  the  week  will  abolish  sacrifice  and  meat  offering.^' 

That  the  confirmation  of  the  covenant  extends  throughout  the 
whole  week,  in  the  midst  of  which  the  sacrificial  service  ceases, 
shows  that  this  must  be,  for  believers,  not  a  distressing,  but  a  joyful 
result;  that  it  stands  in  connexion  with  the  destruction  of  the  tem- 
ple, predicted  immediately  after,  proves  that,  in  respect  to  the  unbe- 
lieving part  of  the  people,  it  is  to  be  considered  as  a  judgment.  If 
now  we  inquire  for  the  cause  of  this  cessation  of  the  sacrificial  ser- 
vice, we  find  it  to  be  the  death  of  tire  Messiah.  That  the  expres- 
sion, "  after  the  62  weeks,"  (reckoned  from  the  going  forth  of  the 
word,  after  69,)  v.  26,  must  not  be  understood,  as  though  the  Mes- 
siah should  be  cut  off  at  the  very  commencement  of  the  70th  week, 
is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  otherwise  his  appearance  (comp.  v.  25, 
"  from  the  going  forth  of  the  word  .  .  .  until  the  Messiah,  are  69 
weeks,")  and  his  death  would  coincide ;   and  that  we  must  not  go 


358  THE  SEVEiNTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

beyond  the  middle  of  the  70th  week,  in  which  the  abolition  of  the  sac- 
rificial  service  is  placed,  is  plain,  from  the  words,  "  after  69  weeks." 

But  in  how  far  was  the  sacrificial  service  abolished  by  the  death 
of  Christ?  This  question,  so  far  as  this  abolition  is  to  be  consider- 
ed as  a  blessing,  is  easily  answered.  Tiie  Levitical  service  as  weak 
and  unprofitable,  (Heb.  7  :  18,)  was  done  away,  when,  by  the  death 
of  Christ,  the  true  forgiveness  of  sin  had  been  obtained,  the  ever- 
lasting righteousness  brought  in,  and,  instead  of  the  ancient  visible 
temple,  a  new  spiritual  holy  of  holies  anointed.  The  shadow  van- 
ished before  the  substance,  the  type  before  the  antitype.  In  refer- 
ence, however,  to  the  abolition  as  a  punishment,  Frischmuth  has 
already  remarked,  1.  c.  p.  932  :  "  Non  agiiur  de  mido  facto,  sed  de 
ahrogatione  Icgithna."  The  sacrificial  service  was  an  attestation  by 
God  himself,  of  his  covenant  with  Israel.  (Comp.  on  Zech.  9  :  11.) 
As  now  this  covenant  was  abolished  by  the  murder  of  his  Son,  so 
also  at  the  same  time  was  the  sacrificial  service,  as  to  its  substance, 
which  rested  on  its  being  introduced  and  approved  by  God,  and  it 
was  of  no  importance,  if  the  cessation  of  sacrifices,  as  outward  ac- 
tions, did  not  follow  till  some  time  afterwards.  For  this  was  only  an 
outward  declaration  of  the  decree  already  executed  at  the  moment 
of  the  death  of  Christ.  It  served  only  to  take  from  Israel,  what  they 
possessed  but  in  imagination.  In  like  manner,  also,  the  destruction 
of  city  and  temple  by  the  Romans  was  only  the  outward  revelation 
of  what,  in  fact,  already  existed.  The  moment  the  death  of  Christ 
took  place,  Jerusalem  was  no  longer  the  holy,  the  temple  no  lor>ger 
an  house  of  God,  but  an  abomination.  Hence,  in  reference  to  all 
three  objects  in  the  prophecy,  only  the  moment  is. made  prominent, 
and  chronologically  designated,  in  which  all  that  followed  was  al- 
ready included,  and  from  which  it  was  afterwards  developed.  An 
entirely  similar  mode  of  representation  occurs  in  Zech.  11,  where 
the  madness  of  internal  dissension  and  the  desolation  of  city  and 
land  by  outward  enemies,  are  placed  in  immediate  connexion  with 
the  rejection  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  relinquishment  of  his  pastoral 
office.  The  supernatural  agency,  which  had  hitherto  guarded  both, 
ceased  with  this  event,  an^  it  was  of  little  consequence  how  much 
or  how  little  time  the  natural  causes,  which  accomplished  both, 
required  for  their  developement. 

Theodoret  calls  our  attention  to  the  circumstance,  that  what  is 
here  predicted  as  a  consequence  of  the  death  of  Christ,  was  symbol- 
ized at  the  moment  of  its  taking  place,  by  the  rending  of  the  veil  of 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  27.  359 

the  temple  (Matt.  27  :  51,  Mark  15  :  38) ;  and  how  just  this  remark 
is,  according  to  both  respects  in  which  the  cessation  of  the  sacri- 
ficial service  is  here  predicted,  appears  from  the  excellent  remarks 
of  Calvin,  respecting  the  import  of  this,  symbolic  action  (^Harm. 
Evang.,  p.  368),  from  which  we  extract  only  what  follows  :  "  Veli 
scissura  non  modo  ceremoniarum,  qua.  sub  lege  vigebant,  ubrogatio 
fult,  sed  gucedam  ccelorum  apertio,  lit  nunc  familiariter  deus  Jilii  siii 
membra  ad  se  invitct.  Intcrca  admoniti  fucrunt  Judfzi,  jinem  exter- 
nis  sacrificiis  esse  impositum,  nullum  posthac  vettris  sacerdotii  usum 
fore  ;  etiamsi  staret  templi  cedificium,  non  amplius  illic  consueto  ritu 
colendum  esse  deum :  sed  quia  jam  umhrarum  substantia  et  Veritas 
completa  erat,fguras  legales  in  spiritum  conversas  esse." 

"  And  over  the  summit  of  abomination  comes  the  destroyer." 

Literally,  "  over  summit  of  abomination  comes  destroyer."  We  take 
^J3,  iving,  as  a  figurative  designation  of  the  summ,it.  It  is  easy  to 
justify  this  on  philological  grounds,  since  this  idiom  occurs  in  Hebrew, 
as  is  generally  confessed.  The  wings  of  a  garment,  for  its  ends  ;  the 
wings  of  the  earth,  Is.  11  :  13,  for  its  extremities;  in  the  Rabbinic 
dialect,  nxn  •'•jjd,  alts  pulmonis,  i.  e.  extremitates  pulmonis ;  in  the 
New  Testament,  nTigv/iov  tov  Ieqov,  Matt.  4  :  5,  Luke  4  :  9,  spoken 
of  the  summit,  not,  as  some  suppose,  of  a  wing,  but  of  the  temple 
itself;  comp.,  in  opposition  to  Kuinol  and  others,  Fritzsche.  It  is  so 
natural,  that  it  is  found  in  nearly  all  languages.  We  cite  only  some 
examples  from  the  Greek  :  nTegvyior  is  explained  by  Suidas  and  Hesy- 
chius  directly  by  uxqcotj^qiov.  The  latter  gives,  the  following  examples 
of  this  usage  :  nrigvyicc,  /.tsQog  rt  tov  qi\uov,  xrxl  tov  Tivsvfiovog  tov  XoSov 
T«  anQa,  7.ai  tov  btrog  to  uvoi,  y.ul  ^Itpovg  to.  exaTSQCO&sv,  ^  t«  axga 
Twp  luttTibiv.  According  to  Pollux,  the  extreme  part  of  the  rudder  is 
called  TiTfQa,  (1,  62.)  Several  passages,  however,  from  Greek  writers, 
which  have  been  adduced  by  various  older  interpreters  after  the  exam- 
ple of  Nicol.  Abraham,  in  the  Pharus,  are  not  to  the  point ;  such 
are  those  in  which  atTog  or  usTolixaTa  (comp.  Suid.  s.  v.  and  Pollux) 
occurs,  as  a  designation  of  the  roofs  of  a  building  in  general,  and 
especially  of  the  temple,  according  to  Suid.  and  Hesych.  ;  also 
uTigv/eg,  because  these  appellations  relate  only  to  the  form  of  the 
roofs,  and  do  not  designate  them  as  the  highest  part  of  the  building, 
which  alone  would  suit  the  passage  before  us.  —  In  respect  to  D^'V-ipK', 
abomination,  we  do  not  exclude  the  special  reference  to  idols,  partly 


360  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

because  this  reference  is  usual  (it  is  wanting,  perhaps,  only  in  Nah. 
3  :  6),  partly  on  account  of  several  passages  hereafter  to  be  cited 
from  older  writers,  which  seem  to  serve  as  the  groundwork  of  this, 
and  in  which  this  reference  prevails.  The  wing  of  abomination,  in 
our  view,  is  the  summit  of  the  temple,  so  desecrated  by  abomination, 
that  it  no  longer  deserves  the  name  of  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  but 
that  of  the  temple  of  idols.  We  find,  in  this  designation,  the  reason 
why  the  ruin  here  predicted  comes  upon  the  temple. 

We  take  Dntyp  in  the  sense  destroyer.  Relying  on  the  usual 
meaning  of  Poel,  on  chap.  11  :  31,  where  the  part.  Dniyp  undeniably 
occurs  in  this  sense,  on  the  manifest  antithesis  between  DDti^n  and 
QDlli>,  the  latter  of  which,  unless  all  philological  investigation  is  to 
be  contemned,  can  mean  nothing  else  than  the  destroyed. 

That  the  destroyer  should  be  or  come  over  the  summit  of  the  tem- 
ple, we  regard  as  a  designation  of  its  utter  ruin,  inasmuch  as  the 
seizure  of  the  highest  part  presupposes  the  possession  of  all  the  rest ; 
a  stronghold,  e.g,,  is  completely  taken,  when  the  enemy  has  master- 
ed its  highest  battlements. 

In  favor  of  our  interpretation,  whose  philological  correctness  no 
one  will  venture  to  doubt,  and  the  characteristic  mark  of  which  is, 
that  it  makes  the  destruction  of  the  temple  to  be  occasioned  by  a 
profanation  of  it,  caused  by  the  covenant  people  themselws,  we  offer 
the  following  positive  arguments. 

1.  This  interpretation  admirably  coincides  with  the  whole  remain- 
ing contents  of  the  prophecy.  The  ancient  temple  is  designated  as 
converted,  by  the  unbelief  of  the  people  and  the  murder  of  the  Mes- 
siah, from  a  house  of  God  into  a  house  of  abomination,  which  must 
be  destroyed,  in  antithesis  with  a  new  real  temple,  a  holy  of  holies, 
which,  according  to  v.  24,  in  the  end  of  the  70  weeks  should  be 
anointed.  To  the  cessation  of  sacrifices,  which  are  sacrifices  no 
longer,  corresponds  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  which  is  no  longer 
a  temple,  a  dwelling-place  of  the  true  God. 

2.  The  destruction  of  the  second  temple  stands  in  the  closest 
relation  to  that  of  the  first.  How  both,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  acci- 
dent, were  solely  an  eflfect  of  the  penal  justice  of  God,  who  avenged 
the  apostasy  of  his  people  and  the  desecration  of  his  sanctuary,  he 
has  made  known  in  a  way  which  should  open  the  eyes  of  the  most 
blind,  and  show  him  that  the  Theocracy  was  not  an  illusion,  but  a 
reality.  The  second  destruction  happened  on  precisely  the  same 
day  as  the  first.     nuqi]v,   says  Josephus   {De  Bella  Jud.  6.  4,  5, 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  27.  361 

p.  385.  Haverc),  after  relating  how  Titus  had  determined  to  spare 
the  temple,  a  determination,  which  was  rendered  nugatory  by  the 
previous  divine  decree,  —  na^ijv  5'  i)  sif^iaQ^iivr]  xqovcxiv  nsglodog,  '>]i^equ 
dsxaTJ]  Xbwv  firji'oc,  itad'  tjV  y.al  to  ngots^ov  vno  xov  xSsv  Ba^vltaviav 
^ixadioig  svsttq/jo&ij.  Surely  it  requires  a  strong  degree  of  false 
belief,  and  of  genuine  unbelief,  to  suppose  that  chance  should  have  so 
skilfully  discovered  the  only  prize  among  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
four  blanks !  If,  however,  it  were  not  chance,  what  a  seal  has  the 
hand  of  God  impressed  on  the  book  of  his  revelations  !  The  con- 
nexion of  the  two  events  affords  no  small  argument  for  the  true  inter- 
pretation of  a  passage,  which  predicts  the  latter,  when,  according  to 
it,  cause  and  effect  appear  in  the  same  relation  as  in  the  predictions 
of  the  former  destruction  ;  and  the  more  so,  since  Daniel  himself 
was  a  witness  of  this  relation,  and  as  he  had  converted  the  writings 
of  the  older  prophets  into  flesh  and  blood,  and  by  the  study  of  them 
been  excited  to  the  intercession,  which  occasioned  the  prophecy 
before  us.  We  now  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  these  passages. 
2  Kings  21  :  2,  &lc.,  it  is  said,  "  Manasseh  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord,  after  the  abomination  of  the  heathen,  whom  the  Lord  had  cast 
out  before  the  children  of  Israel ;  —  and  built  altars  in  the  temple  of 
the  Lord,  —  and  he  placed  the  image  of  Ascherath  which  he  had 
made,  in  the  temple.  ^ — And  the  Lord  spake  by  his  servants  the 
prophets.  Because  Manasseh  has  done  these  abominations,  —  and 
has  made  Judah  also  to  sin  with  his  idols,  —  therefore,  thus  saith  the 
Lord,  —  Behold  I  bring  evil  upon  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  and  I  stretch 
over  Jerusalem  the  line  of  Samaria,  —  and  I  destroy  the  remnant 
of  mine  inheritance,  and  deliver  them  into  the  hand  of  their  ene- 
mies, —  because  they  have  done  evil  in  my  sight."  Jer.  7;  "  They 
placed  their  abominations  in  the  house  which  is  called  by  my  name 
in  order  to  pollute  it.  —  Is  then  this  house,  which  I  called  by  my 
name,  become  a  den  of  thieves  in  your  eyes  ?  —  Therefore  will  I  do 
unto  the  house  which  is  called  by  my  name,  wherein  ye  trust,  and 
to  the  place,  which  Thave  given  to  you  and  your  fathers,  as  I  have 
done  to  Shiloh."  Ezek.  5:11;  "  Wherefore,  as  I  live,  saith  the 
Lord  God,  surely  because  thou  hast  defiled  my  sanctuary  with  all 
thy  detestable  things,  and  with  all  thine  abominations  {l\]T\p^f~i:^^ 
']ir)2piT^~hg2>i),  therefore  will  I  also  take  away,  neither  shall  mine 
eye  spare,  neither  will  I  have  any  pity."  Ezek.  7  :  8,  9 ;  "I  recom- 
pense thee  for  all  thine  abominations.  —  I  will  recompense  thee  ac- 
cording to  thy  ways,  and  thine  abominations  shall  be  in  the  midst 
VOL.  II.  46 


362  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

of  thee."  V.  20;  "And  his  beautiful  ornament  he  hath  changed 
into  haughtiness,  and  the  images  of  their  abominations  tliey  made  for 
detestable  things  therein,  therefore  do  I  give  it  to  them  for  impurity, 
and  I  give  it  (their  ornament)  into  the  hand  of  the  strangers  for  a 
prey,  and  to  the  ungodly  for  a  spoil,  and  they  pollute  it."  V.  22  ; 
"My  face  will  I  turn  also  from  them,  and  they,  the  enemy,  pollute 
my  secret  place  (the  holy  of  holies),  and  the  evil  doers  enter  therein, 
and  defile  it."  Several,  as  Rosenmiiller,  after  the  example  of  Jerome, 
prefer  here  by  vnj/.  OV  (not  "  the  ornament  of  his  beauty,"  but  "  hia 
beautiful  ornament")  to  understand  aurum  atque  nrgentum  afque 
bona  omnia,  qum  illis  divinitus  obtigerunt.  For  the  temple,  however, 
n-lSbn,  in  v.  21,  is  decisive,  and  also  v.  23,  where,  by  way  of  climax, 
the  subject  of  discourse  is  "  the  holy  of  holies."  V.  20;  "I  give  it 
them  for  impurity  (the  sanctuary,  which  they  have  polluted,  shall 
serve  them  for  impurity,  instead  of  sanctification) ;  the  parallel  pas- 
sage, 24  :  11,  "  Behold,  I  desecrate  my  sanctuary,  my  splendid  orna- 
ment, the  desire  of  your  eyes,  the  food  of  your  souls;"  comp.  Jer. 
7  :  4,  Is.  66  :  3,  4.  Now  to  these  prophecies  that  of  Daniel  stands  in 
the  same  relation,  which  we  have  already  pointed  out  between 
Zechariah,  chap.  11,  and  the  two  prophecies  of  Jeremiah. 

3.  "  Where  the  carcase  is,  there  the  eagles  collect."  This  decla- 
ration of  the  Lord  discloses  to  us  the  cause  of  all  the  desolations, 
which  have  passed,  and  will  still  pass  over  his  church,  under  the  old 
and  the  new  covenant.  This  connexion  between  the  lohcre  and  the 
thei-e  is  also  found  in  the  case  of  the  oppression  by  Antiochus  Epiph- 
anes  and  an  attentive  consideratif  n  of  the  passages  relating  to  it 
shows  us,  that  Daniel  here  perceives  it,  nay,  that  he  studiously  exhib- 
its it,  particularly  that  he  represents  the  heathenish  desecration  of 
the  temple  as  a  consequence  of  one,  which  had  proceeded  from  the 
covenant  people  themselves,  and  thus  we  are  the  more  inclined  to 
assume,  that  he  directs  our  attention  here  also  to  the  repetition  of 
this  fundamental  law.  These  passages  are  the  following.  Chap.  11 : 
31,  it  is  said,  "  and  arms  will  arise  out  of  him,  and  pollute  the  sanc- 
tuary, the  strong  place,  and  take  away  that  which  is  constant,  and 
make  the  abomination  ('fiptyn)  as  one  that  is  laid  waste."  This 
passage  is  the  more  important,  since  it  even  has  characteristic  ex- 
pressions in  common  with  the  one  before  us,  which  implies  an  inter- 
nal relationship  of  both.  We  tale  {oyy^,  arms,  in  the  sense, pow;- 
erful,  and  refer  the  svff.  in  O^^a  to  r\"^:i  in  the  preceding  verse,  ex- 
plaining the  masculine  by  the  supposition,  that  cove7iant.  stands  for 


INTERPRETATION. -V.  27.  363 

covenant  people,  (comp.  Ewald,  p.  640,)  just  as  ^rnr,  which  is  al- 
waysfe?nin.,  here,  on  account  of  its  sense,  is  construed  as  masc.  In 
the  expressions,  "they  take  away,"  and  "that  which  is  constant," 
there  is  a  manifest  antithesis.  They  take  away,  that  which  should 
not  be  interrupted  for  a  moment,  every  sign  of  the  worsliip  and 
domi-nion  of  the  Lord.  Most  interpreters  erroneously  refer  this 
exclusively  to  the  daily  sacrifices.  As  it  stands  here,  Tpn  never 
occurs  of  one  particular  object,  but,  with  the  adjuncts,  not  only  of 
the  daily  sacrifice,  but  also  of  the  fire  of  the  altar,  of  the  sacrificial 
lamps,  of  the  shew-bread,  &.c.  The  prophet  embraces  all  this,  as 
Gousset,  s.  v.,  rightly  perceived.  To  give  stands  in  reference  to  to 
take  atcay.  They  put  in  its  place.  By  ]''!pK'n,  the  abomination, 
is  designated  all  that  is  ungodly.  They  give  this  as  so7ncthing  to  he 
destroyed,  because  the  practice  of  it  brings  its  destruction,  as  a 
righteous  punishment,  exactly  corresponding  to,  "  they  desecrate  the 
sanctuary,  the  strong-hold."  Because  they  have  polluted  that  which 
hitherto  afforded  them  a  sure  protection,  the  temple,  so  are  they 
henceforth  by  a  righteous  retribution  given  up  as  a  defenceless  prey 
to  their  enemies.  A  contrast  to  the  giving  of  the  abomination  as  a 
thing  to  be  destroyed,  as  of  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  oppression,  is 
formed  by  the  giving  of  the  abomination,  as  a  thing  to  be  wasted, 
its  destruction  to  be  effected  by  God,  as  the  terminus  ad  quern.  Ac- 
cording to  this  interpretation,  therefore,  this  passage  entirely  coin- 
cides with  the  one  before  us,  according  to  the  explanation  we  have 
given.  Both  make  the  abomination  one,  "  quce  vastationis  sp-ma, 
ut  peccatum  poenam  post  se  irahit.  — Abominationes  considerantur  ut 
peccatum  et  antccedens,  quod  per  supervenientem.  vastatorem  justo  dei 
judicio  vindicatur."  (Lampe,  in  the  valuable  treatise  on  the  pSilvyixa 
xij?  tQrj/xaasag,  in  the  Bibl.  Brem.,  cl.  3,  p.  990  sq.)  Bertholdt 
indeed,  with  most  older  interpreters,  explains  differently  :  "  And  his 
garrison  (i.  e.  of  Antiochus)  will  desecrate  the  fortified  sanctuary, 
remove  the  daily  sacrifice,  and  set  up  the  abomination  of  desolation." 
Accordingly,  the  scandal  would  be  designated,  not  as  proceeding  oat 
of  the  midst  of  the  covenant  people  themselves,  but  from  the  heathen. 
This. interpretation,  however,  besides  the  unphilological  explanation 
of  Tpr^n  and  DnK/p  ]*ipil'ri,  is  liable  to  the  following  objections. 
1.  The  connexion.  V.  30,  32,  the  subject  of  discourse  is,  the 
members  of  the  covenant  people,  who  apostatized  from  the  covenant 
of  the  Lord.  How  comes  it,  then,  that  the  mention  of  the  heathen 
garrison  should   be  thus  introduced  between  ?     2.  The  comparison 


364  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

of  chap.  8,  where,  in  like  manner,  the  abomination  is  something 
originating  from  the  covenant  people  themselves;  comp.  also  11  :  14. 
3.  D';n|  cannot  be  taken  in  the  sense  hosts.  For  then,  as  v.  15,  22, 
the  fern,  would  stand.  4.  Tiy^n  also,  the  strong -hold,  implies  a  dese- 
cration on  the  part  of  the  covenant  people  themselves.  In  the  anti- 
thesis with  ib^n,  it  directs  our  attention  to  the  guilt  and  folly  of  the 
action.  They  robbed  themselves  of  their  strong-hold, —  The  second 
passage  is  that  of  chap.  S:  12.  >'K*gn  Tann-bj?  jn^n  N3yi.  Wetrans- 
late  :  "  And  the  host  is  given  up  on  account  of  that  which  is  constant, 
as  sin,"  i.  e.  because  through  the  covenant  people,  the  abolition  of  that 
which  is  constant,  the  sign  of  the  worship  and  dominion  of  the  Lord, 
has  been  committed,  so  will  they  be  given  up  to  righteous  punishment 
as  sin,  so  treated  as  if  they  were  sin  itself  personified.  That  N3i*,7jos<, 
here  fe?n.  as  Is.  40  :  2,  and  uniformly  in  the  plural,  can  be  under- 
stood only  of  "  the  host  of  the  Lord,  the  covenant  people,"  appears 
from  its  occurring  in  that  sense,  v.  10,  11.  That  i'B'Dn  must  be 
translated  by,  as  sin  (?  here  serves  to  designate  the  relation  of  the 
special  to  the  general;  comp.  the  passages  cited  on  v.  26),  is  plain 
from  V.  13,  where  the  covenant  people  is  designated  directly  as 
j^a'Sn.  We  must  translate,  "  How  long  will  the  vision  endure,  that 
which  is  constant,  and  the  wickedness  laid  waste,  the  giving  up,  as 
well  of  the  sanctuary,  as  the  host,  to  devastation  ?  "  To  Doii',  as  "  a 
thing  destroyed,"  DD"j\p  nn  corresponds,  "  to  give  as  a  trampling 
upon  "  ;  to  "rnnn,  t^np  ;  to  r^gn,  x^y.  If  now  this  interpretation  of 
y^^^  is  incontestably  just,  so  must  Tpnn- S;;,  the  ground  of  this 
giving  as  sin,  designate  that,  whereby  the  covenant  people  have  been 
changed  from  righteousness  into  crime,  the  desecration  of  the  sanc- 
tuary caused  by  their  fault ;  as  it  had  been  previously  described. 
The  explanation  we  have  given  is  confirmed  by  v,  23,  according  to 
which  the  oppression  of  the  covenant  people  should  take  place, 
D'JTi/^iJn  Onn|,  when  the  transgressors  have  finished,  filled  up,  the 
measure  of  sin,  and  thereby  brought  punishment  with  violence.  —  In 
favor  of  our  interpretation  of  both  passages,  the  historical  fulfilment 
gives  a  remarkable  testimony.  In  all  three  sources  of  the  history  Oi 
the  oppressions  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  they  are  uniformly  desig- 
nated as  a  consequence  of  the  abomination  proceeding  from  the  cove- 
nant people  themselves,  as  a  righteous  retribution.  Particularly  do  the 
Jews,  and  not  the  heathen,  appear  as  the  proper  authors  of  the  dese- 
cration of  the  temple.  We  the  more  readily  produce  some  passages, 
since  they  serve  at  the  same  time  to  exhibit  clearly  the  general  mode 


INTERPRETATION.— V.  27.  365 

of  God's  proceeding  in  this  respect,  as  it  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
prophecy  and  its  fulfilment,  and  therefore  constitutes  a  testimony  in 
favor  of  our  interpretation,  entirely  independent  of  the  passages  of 
Daniel.  The  apostate  members  of  the  covenant  people  were  the 
cause  of  the  suffering,  not  only  so  far  as  they  first  caused  Antiochus 
to  intermeddle  with  the  affairs  of  the  covenant  people  (comp,  1 
Mace.  1  :  11),  but  also  in  the  higher  point  of  view,  inasmuch  as 
they  hastened  the  divine  vengeance  by  their  crimes;  comp.  2  Mace. 
4  :  15,  sq.  :  ycal  Tag  fiiv  naigmuq  Tii.iug  iv  o\)8iv\  Ti&dfisvoi,,  Tag  de 
£lki]n)(i(g  do^ixg  y.aXliaxag  ij/otfiEvoo  '  wv  h  ul  )(a  q  tv  nsQtsa%sv  av- 
Tovg  ;^aA67ij}  Tisglaiaaig,  xal  wv  i'Qi]lovv  rag  uymyitg  nal  y.a&unav  rjx^ikov 
i^ofioiovjd^ai,  TovTovg  nol([ilovg  xul  ji^mQrjTug  iaxov  '  a  a  e ^ slv  yuQ 
eig  Tovg  &elovg  vo^ovg  ov  (jadiov,  ullu  lumit  o  dxoXov&og 
y.ttig6g  di^lwasi.  Through  them  the  city  lost  its  prosperity,  which  the 
Lord  had  formerly  secured  to  it,  while  a  better  disposition  yet  pre- 
vailed ;  comp.  3  :  1,  2  :  z?]?  aylag  jolvvv  nolscag  xajoixovfiivi^g  fisju 
naarig  UQt]Vi]g  aal  iwv  vofiav  sii  xakhoTa  avvxrjQOVfiivav  dia  rrjv  Oviov 
Tov  aQ;(iEQimg  ivas^ndv  te  hkI  fiiaonovrjQiav '  uvvs^aivs  >cal  avjovg 
TOvg  jSuailng  Tifiuv  tov  xonov,  xa\  to  ifgov  dnoaToXaig  Tolg  xQUTiaTuig 
So^ixCsiv.  The  apostates  were,  indirectly,  the  only  cause,  directly  the 
accessories  of  the  desecration  of  the  sanctuary  ;  comp.  1  Mace.  1  :  33, 
sq. :  The  Syrians  built  a  castle  nal  sd^rjxav  fxsl  t&vog  u^rnQTaVor,  avSgag 
nagavofiovg,  xui  iviaxvauv  iv  ocvrfi-  That  here  by  the  sinful  people  and 
the  transgressors  of  the  law,  apostate  members  of  the  covenant  people 
are  designated,  appears  partly  from  the  words  themselves,  partly  from 
Josephus  (ArchiBol.  12.5,4;  comp.  J.  D.  Michaelis  on  the  passage) ; 
V.  36  :  xttl  lyh'STO  slg  i'vedgov  tw  dyida^an  xal  tig  Siii^oXov  novrigov 
TW  laguTjX  diuTiui'Tog,  xul  i^i;(sav  ai/.ta  u&ujov  xvx)m  tov  uyiua/xaTog, 
xotl  i  fiolvv  av  TO  a  y  i  cc  a /.i  a.  Even  the  setJng  up  of  ^Sikvyfxa 
xi]g  fgt]fm(sso:)g,  the  abomination,  which  brought  desolation  after  it, 
the  heathenish  altar,  was  effected  by  the  aid  of  these  apostates  j 
comp.  v.  52  sq.  :  xai  uvvtj&golu&rjam'  uno  to£I  luov  ngog  avxovg 
noXlol '  Ttug  0  eyxaTaXilnav  tov  vofiov,  xul  inolrjaav  xaxd  iv  Ttj  yrj, 
X.  T.  X.,  xcxi  Miio86(ir,auv  (]8iXvy/xa  igrii.iwaso:)g  ini  x6  \^vaiaoTi]gLov,  xal 
iv  noXeaiv  Iov8u  xi;xXq)  mxo86i.irioav  j3cofiovg.  And  on  account  of  all 
these  crimes,  the  wrath  of  God  fell  upon  Israel ;  comp.  v.  64  :  xal 
syivETO  ogyt]  /.leyuXi]  arc}  "luga^X  a(f68ga.  As  the  gates  of  Jerusalem 
were  opened  to  Antiochus  by  the  apostates  (comp.  Jos.  12.  5,  3,), 
so  when,  with  impious  hand,  he  defiled  the  sanctuary,  he  was  guided 
by  Menelaus,  tov  xal  twv  vofxoiv  xul  TT)g  naTgi8og  ngo86TTjv  ytyovoxa. 


366  THE   SEVENTY    WEEKS   OF  DANIEL. 

2  Mace.  5  :  15,  sq.  The  ground  why  the  Lord  permitted  this  des- 
ecration is  in  the  same  place,  v.  17,  thus  given  :  5ia  rug  a/jaQjla? 
TWJ'  jTjV  noliv  olxovvjav  anuQ/iarai  ^Qa;;iaig  o  dsanorrji; '  5to  ysyove 
TtsQi  Tov  jonov  nagoQaaig.  The  connexion,  in  general,  of  the  fate  of 
the  temple  with  the  conduct  of  the  people  is  admirably  unfolded 
in  V.  19,  sq.  :  Ov  dice  lov  lonov  to  t&vog,  dlAa  dia  to  sdvog  jov  xonov 
o  xvgiog  f^BliiuTO  '  dionsg  xat  ovrog  o  ronog  av^n^Tnaxbiv  xwv  tov 
i&vovg  dva7iET7]uuT(x)v  ysvoj^ircav,  votbqov  sviQysTrjfiaKav  vno  jov  kvqIov 
ixoivcivi^as,  y.al  o  xniraX7]q)&elg  iv  ttj  rov  nuvioxguTOQog  OQyjj,  ndXtv  iv 
trj  TOV  fifyakov   dianoTOV  xaralloiyfj  lisxa  naar/g  do^t]g  enavoQd^ut&r]. 

4.  This  interpretation  has  the  testimony  of  tradition  in  its  favor. 
This  appears  from  the  passage  of  Josephus,  bell.  Jud.  IV.,  6,  3, 
p.  292,  where  it  is  said  of  the  Zelotes,  val  ttjv  xma  xiig  naxQlSog 
TigocprjTsluv  TsXovg  rj^lmaav  '  T/V  yuQ  8>]  Tig  nayaiog  Xoyog  avdQOJV,  sv&a 
TOTE  T^v  Tiohv  aXaasa&at,  xal  xaTacplsyijaiaSai,  tu  ayia  I'o^o)  noXifiov, 
araaig  tvcv  xaTnoKrupi],  xul  x^^Q^?  olxslai  ngo/xiaivaai,  to  tov  -d^iov 
TifXivog '  o'lg  ovx  annnrioavTtg  ol  ^i]Xa)ial  diaxovovg  eaviovg  inidoaav. 
That  by  the  naXmog  Uyoq  uvSqoJv  here,  the  prophecy  before  us  is  to 
be  understood,  admits  of  no  doubt,  (comp.  Beitr.  1,  p.  2G5.)  Ac- 
cording to  this  passage,  by  Ci'^pil/  was  understood  abominations, 
through  which  the  temple  had  been  polluted  by  the  corrupt  members 
of  the  covenant  people  themselves ;  and  how  generally  diffused  was 
not  only  the  reference  to  the  destruction  by  the  Romans  in  general, 
but  also  this  special  interpretation,  appears  from  the  expre§s  remark 
of  Josephus,  that  the  Zelotes  themselves  adopted  it ;  comp.  also 
6.  2,  3. 

5.  This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  the  most  weighty  of  all 
authorities,  that  of  the  Lord  himself  This,  however,  on  account  of 
the  manifold  misinterpretations  of  his  declarations  concerning  it,  needs 
to  be  pointed  out  more  at  large.  Passages  are.  Matt.  24  :  15,  16,  otuv 
ovv  I'drjTE  TO  ^dilvyixa  rijg  egt^i-iwaicag,  to  QTjdiv  8ia  /lavn]X  tov  nQOCpi'jXOV 
koTcag  iv  Tonbj  uylca  —  o  arayivaoxav  voeIkd  —  tote  6i  iv  ti}  lovSala 
(fEvyhaaav  inl  tu  oqt)  ',  and  Mark  13  :  14,  otkv  Se  I'Si^te  to  ^SiXvy^a 
Trjg  iQrji.muEag  Eaimg  onov  ov  SsT.'  6  avay.  v.  '  tote  ol  x.  x.  X.  According 
to  the  prevailing  interpretation,  which,  e.  g.,  Schott  has  attempted 
fully  to  establish  (^comment,  in  serm.  de  reditu,  p.  47,  sq.)  ^8eX. 
T.  igrju.  is  rendered  abominatio  devastatiunis,  abominatio  devas- 
tanda,  which,  according  to  Kuinol,  stands  as  the  ubstr.  for  concr., 
for  detestabilis  desolator.  This  now  designates  cxcrcitwn  Romanp- 
ruTii  Hitrns.  devastaturum,  milites  paganos  idolorinn  cultores,  ideoque 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  27.  367 

vel  hoc  de  causa  abominandos.  We,  on  the  contrary,  following  such 
excellent  predecet^sors  as  Oleariiis  (Ob-senw.  in  .'''lat.  p.  (582),  Lampe, 
1.  c,  Relaiid,  and  Eisner,  understand  by  (^bil.  t.  iQ.  the  abomination, 
which  being  set  up  by  the  covenant  people  themselves,  must  have  for 
its  inevitable  consequence,  the  desolation,  the  abomination  to  which 
the  desolation  belongs,  as  effect  to  cause.  A  genitive  exactly  like 
that  in  ulfjioitg  anwhiuq,  2  Pet.  2:1,  and  similar  to  the  uvaaxaaig 
^ojjjg.  We  explain  the  word  scjiMg  from  the  figurative  designation  of 
the  abomination,  also  found  in  Daniel,  whereby  the  temple  was  pol- 
luted, as  idols  there  set  up,  borrowed  from  an  earlier  period,  where 
the  abomination  actually  exhibited  itself,  in  this  manner  (comp.  the 
passages  cited  from  the  writings  before  the  exile). 

That  the  chief  argument  brought  for  the  prevailing  explanation, 
viz.  that,  in  the  parallel  passage  of  Luke  21  '.  20  {oiav  ds  i'drjjs 
xvxXovfiivrjv  vno  axQUTonidav  tijv  " leQOVaalrifi,  tots  yvbJif,  oTt  o'lyyixsv 
i]  igi'jixcoatg  avrrjg)  the  encompassing  of  the  city  by  the  Romans  is 
given  as  a  mark  of  the  impending  destruction,  and  as  a  sign  that  it 
is  time  to  fly,  has  no  validity,  we  have  already  shown  in  the  Beitr. 
I.  p.  208.  For  why  may  we  not  well  assume,  that  the  Lord,  whether 
at  the  same  or  at  another  time,  might  direct  attention  to  various 
signs  of  the  destruction  from  the  prophecy  of  Daniel,  that  Luke 
records  the  outward  sign,  which  he  had  taken  from  Dan.  9  :  26, 
(xKt  ijaatXsia  i&iojv  (p&sgsl  t?}j'  ttoIiv,)  and,  indeed,  precisely  this,  be- 
cause it  was  in  itself  the  most  plain,  and  did  not,  like  ihe  other, 
presuppose,  in  order  to  be  understood,  a  deeper  acquaintance  with 
Daniel,  which  Luke  could  not  expect  from  his  readers,  while  Mat- 
thew and  Mark,  on  the  contrary,  recorded  the  internal,  derived  from 
V.  27,  which  coincided  as  to  time,  with  the  outward,  so  that  the 
attentive  observer  might  find  satisfaction  concerning  both  ? 

On  the  contrary,  this  interpretation  is  liable  to  such  great  difficul- 
ties, that  we  cannot  but  wonder,  how  it  has  continued  to  prevail, 
since  it  has  been  opposed  by  the  true  one.  The  greatness  of  these 
difficulties  assumes  a  different  form  according  to  the  different  inter- 
pretation, which  its  advocates  give  of  the  words  fV  jonoj  uyio),  without, 
however,  being  at  all  lessened  in  either  case.  If,  with  Beza  and  others, 
we  understand  by  them  the  temple,  no  reason  can  be  given  why,  as  the 
proper  time  for  flight,  precisely  the  moment  is  designated  when  it  is  too 
late,  and  when  it  is  no  longer  possible  for  those,  who  have  happily  sur- 
vived the  inexpressible  wretchedness  of  the  siege,  from  which  the  Lord 
certainly  wished  to  preserve  his  disciples.     Nor  can  this  difficulty  be 


368  THE    SEVENTY   WEEKS   OF   DANIEL. 

removed  by  the  parallel  passage  of  Luke.  For  although  the  signs 
in  the  different  evangelists  need  not  necessarily  be  the  same,  still 
they  must  coincide  as  to  time,  and  can  by  no  means  be  separated 
so  far  from  each  other,  as  the  commencement  of  the  siege  of  a  city 
and  its  complete  capture.  If,  with  others,  and  indeed  with  most 
defenders  of  this  interpretation,  we  choose  to  understand  by  the 
ronog  uyiog  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem,  we  avoid  Charybdis 
only  to  fall  upon  Scylla.  For  that  by  jonog  ayiog,  the  temple  must 
necessarily  be  understood,  appears,  1.  From  the  word  itself.  The 
passages  need  not  be  cited,  where  Jerusalem  is  designated  as  a  holy 
city,  Palestine  as  a  holy  land.  Instead  of  such  we  should  endeavour 
to  find  only  one  where  precisely  x  onog  uyiog  occurs  of  any  thing 
else  than  the  temple.  Among  the  very  numerous  passages  in  the 
Alexandrian  version,  and  in  the  New  Testament  (comp.  e.  g.  Acts 
.C  :  13,  viixTa  toi)  lonov  uyLov  toviov.  21  :  28,  y.tKoivwKB  lov  uyiov  jonov), 
we  shall  certainly  seek  in  vain.  That  Dfpn,  lonog,  was  already  among 
the  Jews  a  usual  designation  of  the  temple,  has  been  shown  by  Le 
Moyne,  among  others,  Comment. 'in  Jcr.  23,  p.  165.  Schott,  indeed, 
appeals  to  Is.  60  :  13  ;  here,  however,  the  subject  of  discourse  is  not 
the  region  round  Jerusalem,  but  the  temple,  in  the  Hebrew,  as  well 
as  in  the  Seventy.  It  is  promised,  that  the  costly  wood  of  Lebanon 
should  serve  for  the  glorious  building  of  the  temple :  y.al  i]  86^a  rov 
Ai^avov  nqog  as  ?ilft  ■ —  do^uaui  zov  lonov  rov  uyiov  fiov.  2.  The  expres- 
sion ^dk'kvyy.a  T.  {Q.  shows,  as  is  generally  conceded,  that  the  Lord 
had  in  view  the  translation  of  the  Seventy,  although,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  improvement  in  iv  xonoj  uyloj,  instead  of  their  in  I  to  Uqov, 
shows  that  he  adhered  to  it  only  so  far,  as  it  rendered  the  original 
text  correctly.  If  now  the  subject  of  discourse  in  the  Seventy,  as  well 
as  in  the  original,  is  the  temple,  how  can  any  thing  else  be  under- 
stood by  Tonog  liyiog,  especially  since  immediately  after  the  phrase 
iar.  iv  t.  ny.  the  reference  to  Daniel  follows?  3.  That  the  temple 
only  can  be  spoken  of,  is  evident  from  referring  to  what  precedes. 
The  outward  occasion  of  his  discourse  was  the  circumstance,  that 
the  disciples  showed  to  the  Lord  the  buildings  of  the  temple;  he 
had  described  their  ig^ficuaig,  v.  2,  and  the  disciples  had  asked 
him  when  this  would  happen.  When,  therefore,  in  direct  reference 
to  what  had  preceded,  an  abomination  of  desolation  is  spoken  of, 
which  should  stand  in  the  holy  place,  why  should  we  not  understand 
by  this  holy  place,  that  which  had  before  been  designated  as  such? 
The  positive  argument  for  our  interpretation,  according  to  which 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  27.  369 

the  desolation  is  designated  as  belonging  to  the  inward  sign,  pre- 
cisely as  in  Luke  to  the  outward,  are  the  following:  1.  The  Lord 
docs  not  further  e.xpliiin  what  is  meant  by  the  ^SiXv/fja  t^$  (gijfAaaioig, 
but  presupposes  it  eitiier  to  be  already  known,  or  to  be  sought  from 
Daniel,  to  whom  he  expressly  refers.  Now,  as  we  have  already 
shown  from  Josophus,  D'V'pi^  and  j3diXvyna  were  at  that  time  gen- 
erally referred  to  a  pollution  of  the  temple,  which  should  be  caused 
by  the  covenant  people  themselves.  Would  then  the  Lord,  if  he  had 
not  approved  of  this  interpretation,  have  satisfied  himself  with  a  bare 
allusion  ;  would  he  not  have  given  some  indication  concerning  the 
sense  of  the  (35.  r.  iQ.1  2.  According  to  our  interpretation,  the 
passage  has  a  remarkable  parallel  in  that  of  Matt.  24  :  28,  onov  yug 
lav  i]  TO  TtTcofitt,  fxfl  avrn/di'iooi'Tui,  oi  anol.  Without  dwelling  upon 
the  various  misconceptions  of  this  passage,  so  clear  in  itself,  ("  where 
sin  is,  there  also  punishment  comes," —  the  figure  borrowed  from  Job 
39 :  iJO,)  we  only  remark,  that  the  yag,  on  which  Fritzsche  grounds 
his  remarkable  perversion  of  the  sense,  is  most  naturally  explained 
thus:  "The  coming  of  Christ  will  not  take  place  in  one  secret 
corner,  but  be  visible  to  the  whole  earth.  For  where  the  dead  body 
is,  there  the  eagles  collect."  But  now  the  dead  body  will  be  over 
the  whole  earth,  the  eagles,  therefore,  will  appear  throughout  its 
whole  extent,  and  not  as  formerly  in  Judea  alone.  This  passage,  in 
its  connexion,  refers  indeed  in  the  first  instance  to  the  general  judg- 
ment; but  still  only  in  such  a  manner  that  the  entirely  in  neral  dec- 
laration is  there  especially  applied,  and  even  on  account  of  its  univer- 
sality, it  has,  at  the  same  time,  a  concurrent  reference  to  all  former 
judgments,  which  serve  as  preludes  to  this  last.  The  close  con- 
nexion also  between  ihe  different  manifestations  of  the  divine  justice, 
already  appear  from  the  connexion,  which,  throughout  the  whole 
discourse  of  the  Lord,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  sustains  to  the 
final  judgment  of  the  world.  3.  Our  interpretatioh  admirably  agrees 
with  the  history.  That  even  Titus  himself  perceived,  that  the  fearful 
abomination,  whereby  the  temple  had  been  defiled,  caused  the  de- 
struction, is  manifest  from  several  passages  of  Jesephus.  Josephus 
is  thoroughly  penetrated  with  this  thought.  He  says,  e.  g.  [De 
Bell.  Jud.  lib.  4.  5,  2,  p.  287,)  after  he  has  related  the  death  of  true 
friends  of  their  country,  uXX  oifjai  xaTuxQiroci;  6  &t6g  oj?  (xf^iaaiiivrig 
T^?  noXibtq  an(i)Xiiav,  y.al  tivqI  /iovXojj-frog  exxadagd-TjVai,  t«  ayia,  rovg 
avTfxofisvov^   avTWV   xai  (pdootogyovvTag  HFQiixoips. 

The  difference  between  the  words  of  Daniel,  and   those  of  the 

VOL.    !I.  47 


370  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

Lord,  consists  only  in  the  circumstance,  that  in  Daniel  the  language 
is  more  general  ;  the  temple  in  general,  in  and  after  the  death  of 
Christ,  is  represented  as  one  desecrated  by  idolatrous  abominations, 
and  therefore  devoted  to  destruction,  while  the  Lord,  whose  chief 
object  was  to  give  to  his  followers  an  outward  and  perceptible  sign 
of  the  immediately  impending  destruction  (comp.  the  otuv  idrjrs), 
renders  prominent  one  particular  moment  of  this  desecration,  that  in 
which  what  previously  existed,  but  was  more  invisible,  is  made  per- 
ceptible to  the  outward  senses  in  so  frightful  a  form,  that  even  many 
of  those,  who  had  been  the  abetters  of  the  invisible  desecration, 
were  seized  with  horror  in  view  of  it ;  just  as  the  history  of  the  Ze- 
lotes  in  Josephus  is  conceivable  only  by  the  fact,  that  crime,  when 
it  has  arrived  at  its  highest  pitch,  always  becomes  a  sort  of  madness. 

Having  established  our  interpretation,  we  now  take  a  view  of 
those  which  differ  from  it.  The  first  to  be  considered,  is  that  of 
Larape,  which,  essentially  the  same,  differs  only  in  the  understanding 
of^jp.  This  he  interprets  as  a  designation,  not  of  the  summit  of 
the  temple,  but  of  the  temple  itself;  the  wing,  not  as  the  extremity, 
but  as  that  which  protects  and  covers,  appealing  to  the  passages 
where,  as  Exod.  19  :  14,  Deut.  32  :  11,  12,  Ps.  17  :  8,  36:  8,  Mai. 
4 :  2,  the  care  of  God  over  his  people  is  represented  under  the 
image  of  the  protection,  which  eagles  or  other  birds  afford  to  the 
young  (comp.  1.  c.  p.  1010  sq.)  A  parallel  according  to  this  inter- 
pretation would  be  furnished  by  the  passage,  chap.  11  :  31,  "And 
they  profaned  the  sanctuary,  the  stronghold ;"  ^J3  would  only  be  the 
figurative  expression  for  ti;^n.  Against  this  view,  however,  the  use 
of  the  sing.  ']i2  is  decisive,  since  uniformly,  where  the  wing  is  used 
as  an  image  of  protection,  as  well  in  the  cited  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  as  in  those  brought  forward  by  Lampe,  from  Greek  and 
Latm  writers,  we  find  the  plural,  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of 
the  case.  Lampe  appeals  indeed  to  Ps.  91  :  4,  'ij'?  ijp;  in-^px:?  ;  but 
n^DX,  there  used  collectively, yeaf/ters,  must  not  be  confounded  with 
S]JD.  In  addition  to  this,  is  the  great  harshness  of  the  expression, 
"  wing  of  abomination,"  for  the  temple,  which,  if  kept  holy,  would 
be  a  protection,  but  is  now  changed  into  a  place  of  abomination, 
therefore  cannot  justify  the  vain  confidence,  which  the  people  per- 
petually repose  in  it. 

The  explanation  of  Jahn,  I.e.  p.  161,  "super  alam  abomina- 
tionum,  h.  e.  super  abominabilem  exercitum  seditiosoruin  et  lutronum," 
corresponds  in  a  measure,  as  to  the  thought,  with  ours.     Against 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  87.  371 

which,  however,  the  simple  objection  is  decisive,  that  the  sing.  ^^JD 
cannot  be  used  of  a  host;  and  this  is  altogether  natural,  since  the 
comparison  of  the  hostile  army  with  a  bird  of  prey,  who  spreads  out 
his  wings  over  his  spoil,  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  figure.  Is.  8  :8, 
to  which  Jahn  appeals,  has  the  dual  0\3\,D.  Also  D'SJ^,  wings, 
stands  in  Ezekiel,  of  a  host,  only  in  the  plur.  This  also  occurs  in 
the  parallel  passage  adduced  from  Arabic  writers  by  Gesenius,  on 
Isaiah,  I.  p.  335,  and  in  the  Tins.  s.  v.  ^i^l .  We  need  therefore 
scarcely  remark,  that  even  the  verb  DDK;  leads  to  the  idea  of  the 
building,  as  that  which  is  to  be  destroyed,  especially  when  v.  26  is 
compared,  where  ninr^K?  occurs  of  the  ruins  of  the  city  and  the  tem- 
ple, to  which  in  the  verse  before  us,  D^^ty?  as  the  agens,  DOty  as  the 
patiens,  of  the  desolation,  correspond,  and  especially  that  the  collo- 
cation of  the  desolation  with  the  doing  away  of  the  sacrificial  ser- 
vice, suggests  at  once  the  temple,  &c. 

Among  the  interpretations  which  fundamentally  differ  from  ours, 
we  notice,  first,  that  of  Bertholdt,  "On  the  roof  of  a  wing  of  a  sanc- 
tuary, will  the  abomination  of  desolation  stand."  "  The  statue  is 
here  meant,  which  Antiochus  Epiphanes  caused  to  be  erected  to 
Jupiter  Olympus  on  the  roof  of  a  wing  of  the  temple."  This  inter- 
pretation is  liable  to  so  many  objections,  that  we  need  not  urge  that 
this  setting  up  of  the  statue,  is  a  pure  fiction  (comp.  Beitr.  I.  p.  86), 
and  the  whole  reference  of  the  prophecy  to  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  is  only  an  invention  of  that  obstinate  unbelief,  which 
mocks  at  all  argument.  1.  It  testifies  against  itself,  by  confessing 
the  necessity  of  changing  the  stat.  constr.  ^12  into  the  stat.  absol. 
^JO.  2.  Even  admitting  the  correctness  of  the  supposed  emendation, 
the  alleged  sense  cannot  possibly  be  deduced  from  the  words,  without 
violating  all  the  rules  of  grammar.  How  could  Dotyr?  D'i'ipi?,  mean 
"abominations  of  desolation  "?  DpiJ'P,  Bertholdt  asserts,  is  a  part, 
noun,  "  desolation,"  according  to  the  form  ngziD,  "  a  covering,"  2yr\r^, 
"  an  abomination."  But  ^^_!~^'^  does  not  occur  in  the  sense  attributed 
to  it,  but  only  as  a  part,  in  Piel  in  a  transitive  meaning,  comp.  on 
Is.  49:  7;  and  n^Dp  is  no  abstract  noun.  What  Ewald  (p.  237) 
observes,  concerning  the  form  of  the  part.  Kal,  "  They  can,  indeed, 
as  neut.  part,  be  transferred  also  to  things,  but  never  form  abstract 
substantives,"  is  still  more  just  of  the  part.  Piel,  which,  as  in  general 
the  part,  of  the  derivative  conjugation,  adheres  more  closely  to  its 
origin  than  the  part.  Kal.  And,  although  this  interpretation  were  in 
general  admissible,  still  it  could  not  be  applied  here,  on  account  of 


372  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

the  manifest  antithesis  of  un'^n  and  wpw  as  the  agrns  and  pofiens, 
and  the  less  so,  since  this  antithesis  occurs  elsewhere  in  Daniel, 
comp.  11  :  31  with  12  :  11.  And  then,  what  is  accomplished  by  this 
effort?  The  stat.  absoL  Cy^pB*  cannot  stand  for  the  stat.  constr. 
It  is  true,  that  in  Hebrew  the  deficiency  of  composite  nouns  is  sup- 
plied, not  only  by  the  connexion  of  two  nouns  in  the  stat.  constr., 
but  also  by  their  juxtaposition  in  the  stat.  absol.;  comp.  e.  g.  ^2 
nSjf)n,  loine  of  tumult,  Ps.  60  :  5,  and  niN^V  D'^'^^*,  God  of  hosts, 
Ps.  80  :  15,  and  pny~ni.Jir,  mildness  and  righteousness,  Ps.  45  :  5,  in 
which  case  the  pronunciation  supplied  the  want  of  a  grammatical 
designation  of  a  close  connexion. — But  this  sort  of  combination 
occurs  only  with  those  nouns,  the  meanings  of  which  should  be 
combined  in  one  conception,  while  the  designation  by  the  stat. 
constr.  is  much  wider,  and  indicates  every  sort  of  relation  of  one 
noun  to  the  other.  Such  a  combination,  however,  in  respect  to  the 
"abomination  of  desolation,"  can  by  no  means  be  here  assumed. 
The  easiest  of  all  combinations,  a  mere  juxtaposition,  would  be  suit- 
able here,  since  idols  could  not  be  considered  as  a  cause  of  the 
desolation. 

The  interpretation  of  Hitzig  still  remains,  who,  (1.  c.  p.  150)  con- 
necting these  words  with  what  follows,  translates,  "  and  over  the 
summit  of  the  abomination  of  desolation,  and  until,  &,c.  will  it  pour 
itself."  In  order  to  vindicate  for  DOtS'n  D'V'ptf^  the  sense,  uhomina- 
tion  of  desolation,  he  appeals  to  ntvp^  D'.JI'^.,  Is  19  :  4,  where  in  like 
manner  a  noun  in  the  -plur.  is  joined  with  an  adject,  in  the  sing. 
But  who  would  draw  the  conclusion  from  one  such  example,  that  in 
general  every  plural  may  stand  for  the  siiigularl  This  is  rather  the 
case  only  with  a  few  determinative  nouns,  in  which  the  plur.  form 
serves  simply  as  a  designation  of  the  abstract,  as  D'^U'^^j  CJ?^?:^,  0"'^"'?!?., 
the  last  two,  when  they  stand  precisely  in  the  sense,  dominion,  comp, 
Ewald,  p.  641.  Would  any  one,  however,  explain  D'V'PK;,  which 
never  occurs  except  as  an  KcivmX  plur.,  according  to  this  analogy,  he 
could  only  translate,  "desolating  dominion  of  idols."  But  what 
would  this  be?  Could  the  dead  idols  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  be 
considered  as  authors  of  the  desolation?  And  what  is  meant  by 
"over  the  wing,  or  the  summit  of  the  desolation,  the  dominion  of 
idols"?  Not  to  mention  that  the  erroneous  understanding  of  nS^ 
nX'inJi,  as  well  as  of  'ijiDn  and  DOK'  is  inseparably  connected  with 
this  interpretation. 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  27.  373 


'■'And  indeed  until  that  which  is  completed  and  cut  off  shall  drop 
upon  that  which  is  made  desolate.  " 

We  first  investigate  the  meaning  of  ^Sd.  Interpreters  and  lexi- 
cographers, commonly  take  as  such  that  of  the  completion,  which  is 
here  supfjosed  to  stand  for  the  finished  desolation.  Suspicion  is 
awakened  against  this  sense  even  by  the  form  of  the  word.  It  is 
thefe7n.  of  the  adject.  hSd,  as  Tt^l  of  n5\  The  7nasc.  occurs,  Deut. 
28  :  32,  in  the  sense  dcficiens,  tahesccns.  To  the  form  as  nSii  of 
the  verbs  nS,  however,  the  form  ^HD,  of  the  regular  verbs  corre- 
sponds, which  always  forms  adjectives  of  an  intransitive  meaning, 
never  abstract  nouns;  and,  least  of  all,  those  of  a  transitive  meaning, 
comp.  Ewald,  p.  231,  422.  What  we  thus  learn  from  the  form  is 
confirmed  by  the  usage  of  the  language.  nSp  never  occurs,  except 
as  the  fern,  or  ncut.  for  that  which  is  finished.  This  sense  is  evident, 
e.  g.,  Zeph.  I  :  8,  where  hSd  is  joined  with  another  por^  "!|X  nSj  O 
]"\ir\  ^2^''-hD  nx  ^'iy\  ^'^%!5J,  "  for  that  which  is  completed,  only 
that  which  is  terrible  (Sna  in  Niph.  never  precisely  to  haste)  does 
the  Lord  with  all  inhabitants  of  the  land."  It  is  equally  evident  in 
the  passage  before  us  and  Is.  10  :  23,  28  :  22,  where  hSd  is  joined 
with  another  part.  Tiiat  the  frequent  phrase,  Th2  Hii;];,  is  not  to  be 
translated,  "  for  a  completion,"  but  "  to  make  to  a  finished  thing," 
is  evident  from  Jer.  46  :  28,  "  For  that  which  is  finished  will  I  do 
among  all  nations,  but  thee  I  will  not  make  to  that  which  is  finish- 
ed." Gen.  18:21,  "Yet  I  will  go  down  and  see  whether  they 
hSd  W);^  according  to  the  cry  that  comes  to  n)e,  or  not,  will  I  know," 
is  to  be  explained,  either,  whether  they  have  made  their  sin  complete, 
with  reference  to  the  foregoing  verse,  "  The  cry  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  is  very  great,  and  their  sin  is  very  grievous,"  or  whether 
they  have  made  it  full,  whether  they  have  carried  it  to  the  uttermost. 

The  completion  can  now  refer,  either  to  the  decree  or  the  execu- 
tion. Of  the  completion  of  the  decree,  the  verb  "rh^  often  occurs. 
Thus  e.  g.  1  Sam.  20  :  7,  "  When  he,  Saul,  shall  rage,  then  know 
'{'iV'Q  T\yir\  nnSD"".?,  that  the  evil  is  completed  on  his  part,"  that  he 
has  formed  the  firm  and  irrevocable  determination  to  execute  it.  In 
like  manner  v.  9,  1  Sam.  25:  17,  "And  now  consider  and  see, 
what  thou  doest,  in'.T-Ss-Sin  irnx.  S>«  Hinn  nnS.D -•'.?,  since  the 
evil  is  firmly  decreed  for  our  Lord  and  over  his  whole  house."  Esth. 
7:7,"  For  Haman  saw,  ^V.'!;.n  nxr?  njnn  vS^  nnS^-^3,  that  the  evil 


374  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

was  firmly  decreed  against  him  from  the  king."  These  passages 
show  that  the  word  is  not  only  used  in  general  for  a  decree,  but  is 
limited  by  the  usage,  especially  to  the  finished  determination  to 
inflict  suffering  upon  any  one.  In  a  good  sense,  it  never  occurs, 
corap.  still  Prov.  22:  8,  and  Schultens  on  the  passage.  Even  this 
adj.  hSd  is,  1  Sam.  20  :  33,  used  as  a  designation  of  such  a  finished 
decree,  "  And  Jonathan  perceived,  "nj;;!  n'on^  VDN  Q^p,  x^n  nS^-'a 
nn,  that  there  was  a  firm  decree,  on  the  part  of  his  father,  to  kill 
David."  That  n'^p  is  here  also  to  be  referred  to  a  thing  completed 
as  to  the  purpose  not  the  execution,  is  evident,  1.  From  its  colloca- 
tion with  another  word,  designating  the  firmness  and  irrevocable 
nature  of  the  decree.  2.  From  ^Pn,  which  is  always  used  of  the 
cause  of  the  destruction,  the  divine  anger,  or  the  divine  penal  sen- 
tence, never  of  the  destruction  itself.  3.  From  the  comparison  of 
Is.  28  :  22,  where  the  same  phrase  nV"^nAl  hSd  is  designated  as  an 
object  of  hearing  :  "A  thing  completed  and  cut  off",  heard  I  from 
the  Lord,  the  Almighty." 

The  entirely  similar  connexion  of  both  words  in  the  passage  before 
us,  and  in  the  two  of  Isaiah,  in  which  they  were  rightly  understood 
by  the  Apostle  Paul,  Rom.  9  :  7,  and  afier  him  by  Vitriuga,  but  erro- 
neously by  Gesenius,  makes  it  highly  probable  that  in  this  connexion, 
they  formed  a  judicial  technical  term,  the^firm  and  irrevocable  final 
decree.  Perhaps  especially  in  the  case  of  life  and  death.  It  is, 
therefore,  unnecessary  with  Hitzig,  to  assume,  that  Daniel  borrowed 
from  Isaiah,  and  we  may  thus  easily  explain  the  verbal  agreement  of 
the  two  passages  of  the  latter.     "  The  judgment  is  pronounced." 

We  do  not  consider  the  sentence,  with  nearly  all  interpreters,  as  a 
completely  independent  one,  "  until  the  completion,"  as  they  trans- 
late, "  and  until  the  judgment  will  it  drop,"  &.c. ;  but  we  place  it  in 
connexion  with  the  preceding,  "  over  the  wing  of  abomination  comes 
the  destroyer,  and  indeed  until,"  &.c.  The  justification  of  this  con- 
nexion lies,  in  part,  in  the  true  interpretation  of  nynnjl  dSd.  For  if 
this  can  designate  only  the  decree,  the  final  sentence,  in  antithesis 
with  the  smaller  chastisement  previously  decreed,  n;^  cannot  be  the# 
terminus  ad  quern  of  the  dropping.  The  divine  punishment  does  by 
no  means  cease  with  the  final  sentence,  but  rather  its  most  fearful 
expression  only  then  commences.  And  besides,  according  to  our 
interpretation,  ']r\T)  retains  its  entirely  natural  subject,  the  final  sen- 
tence, which  is  itself  represented  as  dropping  down,  because  with 
God,  decree  and  execution  happen  at  the  same  moment,  exactly  as 


INTERPRETATION.  — V.  27.  375 

it  is  said,  v.  11,  "  Since  the  curse  and  the  oath  are  poured  upon  us, 
which  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,"  and  Mai.  2  :  2,  "  I  send  upon 
you  the  curse,"  and  as  Zech.  5  :  4,  "  The  roll  written  with  the  curse 
comes  to  the  house  of  the  thief,  and  the  false  swearer,  and  destroys 
it."  According  to  the  other  interpretation,  on  tlie  contrary,  '^nn 
must  be  taken  impersonally,  as  it  never  occurs,  and  sliould  the  less 
be  understood  so  here,  since  (v.  11)  it  stands  with  the  definite  sub- 
ject. That  the  i  in  nj^i  does  not  disprove  our  interpretation,  since  it 
often  stands  as  the  looser  connexion,  instead  of  the  closer  by  et 
quidem,  thus  e.  g.  in  v.  25,  piy3i,  scarcely  needs  to  be  remarked ; 
comp.  Jer.  15  :  13,  Ewald,  p.  654,  Gesen.  p.  845.  In  like  manner 
the  y.m,  John  1,  16,  Winer,  p.  367.  That  n>'  is  not,  with  Bertholdt, 
to  be  interpreted  by,  "finally,'''  is  self-evident. 

The  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  as  the  type  of  all  future 
annihilating  judgments  of  God,  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  expres- 
sion, "  it  will  drop  down  upon."  ijHJ  is  used  originally  of  natural 
rain;  comp.  2  Sam.  21  :  10,  Exod,  9  :  33.  By  a  supernatural  rain, 
however,  (comp.  Gen.  19:24,  "and  God  caused  it  to  rain  upon 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  fire  and  brimstone,")  the  destruction  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  was  effected.  This  passage  of  Genesis  in  a  remark- 
able manner  forms  the  basis  of  a  multitude  of  others,  in  which  the 
destruction  of  the  ungodly  is  described.  It  is  most  closely  adhered 
to  in  Ps.  11  :  6,  "God  will  rain  upon  the  ungodly,  cords  (not,  in- 
deed, "  lightnings,"  which  is  entirely  arbitrary.  The  image  taken 
from  a  judicial  proceeding;  the  transgressor  is  chained  before  the 
capital  sentence  is  passed  upon  him.  There  is  a  contrast  with  the 
previous  independence  of  the  ungodly),  fire  and  brinfttone,"  and 
Ezek.  38  :  22,  "  Fire  and  brimstone  will  I  rain  upon  him."  But  the 
reference  is  manifest  in  the  following  passages,  which  are  more 
nearly  related  to  the  one  before  us  :  2  Chron.  34  :  21,  "  Great  is  the 
rage  (lit.  glowing  fire)  of  the  Lord  which  has  poured  itself  upon  us 
(^J3  rizij33),  because  our  fathers  have  not  observed  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  to  do  according  to  all  that  is  written  in  this  book."  12  :  7, 
"  And  my  glowing  anger  will  not  drop  down  'ijnn,  upon  Jerusalem." 
Jer.  7  :  20,  "  Behold"  my  anger  and  my  fury  is  poured  out,  ^^Dl,  on 
this  place,  over  (as  in  the  passage  before  us)  man  and  beast  and 
trees  of  the  field,  the  fruit  of  the  earth,  and  they  turn  and  are  not 
quenched."  42  :  18,  "As  my  anger  and  fury  has  poured  itself  (irnj) 
over  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  so  will  my  fury  drop  down  ':|nn, 
over  you,  when  ye  come  to  Egypt,"   44  :  6,  "  My  fury  and  nay  anger 


376  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

(comp.  Is.  42  :  25,  13X  rron  as  a  composite  noun,  "  his  glowinj^  an- 
ger,") pours  itself,  and  burns  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  in  the  t^treets 
of  Jerusalem,  and  they  become  a  ruin  and  desolation  ; "  comp. 
still,  Nah.  1  :  6,  Lam.  2  :  4,  Is.  42  :  25.  From  these  parallel  passa- 
ges it  appears,  that  the  violent  rain  of  the  divine  anger  was  the  con- 
stant designation  of  the  judgment,  which  caused  the  destruction  of 
the  covenant  people,  and  so  usual  that  it  occurred  even  in  the 
simplest  historical  prose.  Daniel,  who  had  himself,  as  a  contempo- 
rary, lived  to  witness  such  a  rain,  (comp.  v.  11,)  who  had  even  in- 
terceded for  the  awful  ruins  of  the  fire,  receives  here  the  intelli- 
gence, that  when  they  have  been  rebuilt,  and  the  anger  of  God  shall 
again  be  called  forth  against  them,  more  fearful  than  before,  a  new 
rain  of  fury  will  convert  them  again  into  ashes  and  desolation.  The 
expression  always  implies  a  total  annihilation,  and  for  this  reason 
alone  cannot  be  referr-ed  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  In  order  to 
evade  this  unpleasant  consequence,  recent  interpreters,  taking  Urpp 
actively,  divert  the  glowing  anger  from  the  covenant  people  to  their 
enemies,  "  over  the  destroi/cr."  In  this,  as  might  easily  be  supposed, 
they  are  not  without  predecessors  among  the  Jewish  interpreters, 
although  these  unanimously  maintained  the  reference  of  the  proph- 
ecy to  the  destruction  by  the  Romans.  Abarbanel  :  "■  Precterea 
desolatiunis  meminit  adhuc  vcnturce  super  ipsas  gentes,  qiicc  ct  ipsa 
erit  usque  ad  perdifionem."  The  choice  of  thjs  unpiiilological  ex- 
planation shows,  that  no  other  resource  was  left,  and  its  refutation 
therefore  is  a  confession,  on  the  part  of  the  Rationalist  interpreters, 
of  the  untenableness  of  their  interpretation.  The  verb  Dtf^  is  with- 
out exception  intransitive,  never  transitive,  ''to  destroy."  We  prove 
this  by  an  examination  of  all  the  passages  cited  in  favor  of  the  tran- 
sitive meaning.  Ezek.  36  :  3,  ni"?"^  jjr^  (comp.  on  this  infin.  form, 
Ewald,  p.  473,)  is  commonly  translated  by,  " propterea,  quod  devas- 
tant  vos."  It  must,  however,  rather  bo  translated,  "  because  ye  are 
laid  waste,  and  because  they  are  jealous  against  you,  that  ye  may 
become  a  possession  for  the  heathen."  This  is  undeniably  evident 
from  V.  4,  where  in  like  manner,  as  a  cause  of  the  active  interposition' 
of  the  divine  compassion,  first  the  desolation  by  the  Chaldees  is 
cited,  and  then  the  sufferings,  which  the  miserable  people  had  to 
endure  from  their  haughty  neighbours,  in  like  manner  as  both  are 
constantly  united  in  the  complaints  of  those  times.  With  nir:w, 
''the  desolate  ruins,"  mrDrDK-' nn"jn  exactly  correspond,  and  "the 
deserted  cities."     In  the  whole  prophecy,  the  wasting  of  the  land  of 


INTERPRETATION.  —  V.  27.  377 

Israel  is  never  charged  upon  the  surrounding  nations,  but  only  cruel 
scorn  and  plundering.  The  desolation  is  constantly  that  caused  by 
the  Chaldees.  An  appeal  is  farther  made  to  Dan.  8 :  13,  where 
DDt:'  i'K'iin  is  said  to  mean,  "  abomination  of  the  destroyer."  But 
the  grammatical  objection  to  this  interpretation  is  so  obvious,  that 
Gesenius  and  Winer  have  been  led  thereby  to  substitute  DDK'n  'Jt^, 
thus  testifying  themselves,  that  they  cannot  venture  to  explain  ac- 
cording to  their  view,  what  actually  stands  in  the  text.  We  showed 
already,  p.  304,  that  we  must  interpret,  "  how  long  endures  the 
vision,  that  which  is  constant  (the  sacred  service)  and  the  sin,  (the 
covenant  people  appear  personified  as  sin  ;  comp.  a  similar  personifi- 
cation Zech.  5  :  8,  where  the  Israelitish  people  is  represented  as  a 
woman,  ungodliness,  and  also  Mai.  1  :  4,)  as  laid  waste."  The 
passive  interpretation  of  Crpt'  is  required  even  by  Tipr^ri.  For  what 
would  this  mean,  "  how  long' endures  that  which  is  constant,"  since 
according  to  the  context,  the  discourse  must  relate  to  the  continu- 
ance of  its  abolition  ?  Therefore,  "  how  long  endures  that  which  is 
constant,  as  a  thing  laid  waste,"  precisely  as  in  the  parallel  and 
explanatory  sentence  Dono  belongs  to  both,  to  ^IV,  answering  to 
T'9C*l!,  and  to  N3i',  a  host,  a  designation  of  the  covenant  people, 
answering  to  i'K'iin.  Finally,  an  appeal  is  stili  made,  —  Is.  42  i  14, 
cited  by  the  older  interpreters,  is  not  to  be  mentioned,  because  it  is 
now  conceded  that  the  form  Dnt^  does  not  there  occur,  but  DK'J,  — ^ 
to  Dan.  12  :  11,  "  And  from  the  time  that  that  which  is  constant  is 
taken  away,"  DDtJ'  ]*^piy  ^D'^I,  which,  —  as  lastly  by  Rosenm.,  —  is 
translated,  "  and  that  the  desolating  abomination  is  given  up,"  so 
that  the  words  still  belong  to  the  determination  of  the  terminus  a  qxiot 
But  this  interpretation  involves  the  difficulty,  that,  according  to  it, 
the  terminus  ad  quern  is  entirely  wanting,  and  besides  it  is  difficult 
not  to  perceive  the  manifest  antithesis  of  "  they  give  the  abomination 
as  a  destroyed,"  DDK/n,  11  :  31.  We  must,  therefore,  take  the  words 
as  a  designation  of  the  terminus  ad  qucm,  "  from  the  time  when  that 
which  is  constant  was  taken  away,"  and  afterwards,  "  when  the 
abomination  is  given  up,  as  a  thing  destroyed,"  when  the  abomina- 
tion, which  had  been  before  set  up,  as  author  of  the  desolation,  as 
drawing  this  after  it,  according  to  the  law  of  retribution  is  now  itself 
laid  waste;  and  as  it  is  said  in  the  parallel  passage,  8  :  14,  "the 
sanctuary  is  justified."  This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  v.  7, 
where  likewise  S  stands  as  a  designation  of  the  terniimis  ad  quern.  — 
From  these  remarks,  it  is  evident,  that  no  one,  without  subjecting 
VOL.  II.  48 


378  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

himself  to  the  charge  of  entire  capriciousness,  will  hereafter  trans- 
late DiOty  in  the  passage  before  us,  by  destroyer,  and  especially  as 
the  manifest  antithesis  of  DOti'p  and  D??!^*,  as  of  the  ngens  and  the 
pattens,  forbids  Us  to  identify  them,  and  as  the  i^art.  U'Qp  occurs 
again  in  this  portion,  v.  26,  and  in  the  rest  of  the  chapter,  also  in 
an  intransitive  sense. 


THE  DEFINITENESS  OF  THE  DATES. 

The  prevailing  view  in  the  synagogue  and  church  has  ever  been, 
that  the  70  weeks,  as  well  as  the  smaller  periods  into  which  they 
are  divided,  are  accurately  determined,  and  strictly  limited.  The 
opposite  supposition  is  liable  to  suspicion  even  for  being  found  among 
those,  who  had  involved  themselves  in  chronological  difficulties  by 
false  hypothesis,  or  who  had  no  relish  for  chronological  investiga- 
tions. Although  it  is  seldom  done,  yet  we  must  accurately  distin- 
guish between  an  objective  and  subjective  indefiniteness.  The 
latter,  which  Sack,  1.  c.  p.  291,  seems  chiefly  to  assert,  when,  among 
other  things,  he  says,  "  It  is  one  thing  to  assume  an  exact  coinci- 
dence in  the  view  of  the  divine  wisdom,  and  another  to  maintain, 
that  this  is  susceptible  of  proof,"  must,  in  order  to  its  being  rendered 
certain,  produce  evidence  that  the  chronology  of  the  times  from  the 
terminus  a  quo  to  the  terminus  ad  qucm  is  uncertain.  As  this  proof, 
however,  cannot  be  produced,  as  the  divine  wisdom  is  especially 
manifest  in  the  circumstance,  that  the  chronological  determination 
of  the  appearing  of  the  Messiah  is  first  given  in  a  time,  in  which  the 
chronology,  by  the  comparison,  which  it  is  in  our  power  to  make  of 
various  data  and  numerous  contemporary  writers  in  different  nations, 
rests  on  the  Burest  foundation,  this  supposition  is  to  be  rejected  with- 
out farther  consideration.  In  favor  of  the  objective  indefiniteness, 
the  supposition  that  the  chronological  determination  is  only  given  in 
general,  the  following  arguments  have  been  urged. 

1.  "  It  is  evident  that  U^y^VJ,  used  as  a  measure  of  time,  is  chosen 
chiefly  on  account  of  its  similarity  .in  form  with  the  numeral  D'^'^^, 
in  the  two  prophecies  of  Jeremiah,"  2.  "  It  is  clear,  that  the  num- 
ber of  these  □"'j^^Jiy  is  made  up  to  70,  for  no  other  reason,  than  be- 
cause the  absolutely  necessary  agreement  of  the  70  years  of  Jere- 


THE   DEFINITENESS   OF  THE  DATES.  379 

miah  required  this  number,  and  excluded  every  other."  So  Ber- 
tholdt,  p.  610.  It  is  certainly  correct,  that  the  70  weeks  of  the  re- 
storation stand  in  a  close  relation  to  the  70  years  of  the  desolation. 
But  what  follows  from  this  ?  The  fcrmimis  a  quo  is  so  chosen,  that 
such  a  relation  would  accurately  coincide  with  the  result.  Precisely 
this  difference  of  the  tcrinimis  a  quo  of  the  70  weeks  from  the  termi- 
nus ad  quern  of  Jeremiah,  shows  that  the  time  should  be  accurately 
determined.  3.  Cocceius  remarks,  "  J^un  crcdibilc  esse,  (hum  volu- 
isse  fidcm  suspnidcre  a  chronologia."  But  from  the  argument  which 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  this  view,  we  might  prove  that  every  trans- 
lation, of  Holy  Scripture  must  be  inspired.  For  otherwise  would 
faith  depend  on  philology  ;  in  like  manner,  that  all  historical  inquir- 
ies respecting  the  canonical  authority  of  the  biblical  writings,  would 
be  useless.  The  argument  is  no  more  valid  against  this  prophecy, 
than  against  all  others  whose  chronology  is  determined.  If  only  one 
such  is  shown  to  exist,  it  is  at  the  same  time  proved,  that  the  argu- 
ment must  rest  on  an  erroneous  principle.  Do  those,  who  are  una- 
ble or  unwilling  to  engage  in  chronological  investigations,  receive 
the  less  benefit,  because  regard  has  been  paid  to  those  who  are  ? 
May  they  not  still  enjoy  here  the  same  advantage  as  in  the  case  of 
the  other  Messianic  prophecies  ?  Are  not  all  outward  proofs  of  the 
divine  origin  of  Christianity  to  be  perceived  in  an  independent  man- 
ner'only  by  him,  who  possesses  the  knowledge  necessary  for  their 
examination?  And  can  this  examination  of  any  one  of  these  proofs 
be  made  without  a  sufficient  knowledge  ?  And  is  not  this  also  re- 
quired in  order  to  know  about  the  time  of  the  fulfilment?  And  shall 
we  undertake  to  decide  the  limit  beyond  which  God  must  not  pro- 
ceed ?  Are  all  proofs  of  Christianity  for  all,  or  has  not  rather  the 
divine  wisdom  and  love  provided,  that  every  one,  who  will  suffer 
himself  to  be  convinced,  shall  find  them  in  his  own  sphere  ?  Need 
he,  who  is  not  at  home  in  any  particular  department,  in  which  God 
has  left  the  evidences  of  his  truth,  be  envious  because  God  is  so  good  ? 
Need  any  one,  e.  g.,  envy  the  Christian  historian,  because  the  proof, 
from  the  powerful  effects  of  Christianity,  unfolds  itself  to  him  far 
more  clearly  and  fully,  than  to  one,  who,  in  respect  to  history,  is  more 
or  less  an  uneducated  man  ?  And,  finally,  are  not  the  xa^lafxaia  in 
the  church  for  the  good  of  the  whole  ?  Do  not  the  results,  gained 
by  learned  investigations,  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  incorpo- 
rated with  the  tradition  of  the  church,  benefit  the  unlearned,  who 
embrace  them  with  confidence  ? 


380  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

But  in  proportion  to  the  weakness  of  the  argument  against,  is  the 
strength  of  those  fo?-,  the  definiteness  of  the  chronological  dates. 

1.  The  70  weeks  stand  in  the  most  exact  relation  to  the  70  years 
of  Jeremiah.  The  evidence  of  the  chronological  definiteness  of  the 
latter,  applies  equally  to  that  of  the  former.  This  proof,  however, 
may  be  easily  produced.  That  Daniel  regarded  the  70  years  as 
definite,  is  shown  even  by  his  prayer  in  the  69th.  Had  there  been 
any  doubt  on  this  point,  before  the  fulfilment,  still  that  would  have 
entirely  removed  it.  That  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  is  precisely  70 
years  from  the  terminus  a  quo  of  Jeremiah,  the  4th  year  of  Jehoia- 
chim,  has  already  been  proved  in  the  Beitr.  I.  p.  181.  That  the 
Syrian  chronology  also  gives  the  same  result,  will  be  shown  in  a 
'*  Dissertatio  de  Tyro  a  Nehucadnezare  capta,"  which  is  soon  to 
appear. 

2.  All  the  remaining  dates  of  Daniel  concerning  the  future  are 
definite.  That  those  in  chap.  8  and  12,  concerning  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees,  are  so,  not  merely  to  the  year,  but  even  to  the  day,  is 
generally  conceded.  Also  the  determination  of  the  time  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's madness  is  proved  to  be  chronologically  exact  by  chap. 
4  :  31,  "  In  the  end  of  the  (definite)  days,  although  the  length  of  the 
measure  of  time  must  first  be  determined  by  the  fulfilment." 

3.  The  prophecy  itself  bears  all  the  marks  of  chronological  defi- 
niteness. That  this  is  even  indicated  by  the  expression  ■^nn A,  has 
already  been  shown  in  the  interpretation.  The  terminus  a  quo  and 
the  terminus  ad  quern  are  not  fluctuating,  but  designated  by  strictly 
limited  events.  The  whole  period  of  70  weeks  is  not  only  divided 
into  three  parts  of  7,  62,  and  1  week,  but  also  this  latter  into  two 
halves.  How  could  this  happen,  if  no  regard  was  paid  to  half  a 
hundred  years,  more  or  less  ?  God  himself  would  have  given  occa- 
sion to  doubt  his  word,  if  a  prophecy,  bearing  all  the  marks  of  chron- 
ological definiteness,  were  proved   by  the  fulfilment  to  be  indefinite. 

4.  Were  the  case  not  completely  decided  by  these  arguments,  the 
fulfilment  must  turn  the  scale,  and  an  interpretation,  which  has  this 
on  its  side,  must  undoubtedly  be  the  true  one. 

It  is  self-evident,  that  the  assertion  of  this  definiteness  cannot  be 
extended  beyond  the  limits  belonging  to  the  subject  itself.  It  can 
naturally  take  place  in  its  full  extent,  only  in  respect  to  those  dates, 
which,  as  most  of  those  in  the  prophecy  before  us,  fall  in  a  definite 
and  strictly  limited  moment.  As  to  events,  which  are  more  protract" 
ed  in  their  nature,  as  the  completion  of  the  building  of  the  city,  and 


DETERMINATION   OF   THE    TEEMUYUS  A    qUO.         381 

the  subjective  appropriation  of  the  blessings  obtained  through  Christ, 
the  defiiiiteness  of  the  prophecy  cannot  naturally  be  extended  beyond 
the  defiiiiteness  of  history. 


THE    TERMINUS  A    QIO    OF   THE   SEVEiNTY   WEEKS. 

We  have  shown  in  the  exegetical  part,  that  this  does  not  consist 
in  the  commencement  of  the  building  of  the  city  in  general,  but 
rather  in  that  of  its  finished  restoration,  according  to  its  ancient  ex- 
tent and  ancient  dignity.  It  still  remains  for  us  to  make  out,  in  an 
historical  way,  in  what  year  this  date  falls. 

Were  the  inquiry  merely  concerning  the  commencement  of  the 
rebuilding,  those  would  unquestionably  be  right,  who  place  the  ter- 
minus a  quo  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus.  Then  would  the  argument 
have  force,  that  the  returning  exiles  could  not  dwell  under  the  open 
heavens,  and  that  to  assert,  that  under  Cyrus  nothing  was  yet  done 
towards  the  rebuilding  of  the  city,  is  to  make  Isaiah,  who  (45  :  13) 
praises  Cyrus,  as  its  rebuilder,  the  author  of  a  false  prophecy.  Who 
could  doubt  concerning  a  fact,  which  is  evinced  by  every  chapter  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  which  concerns  the  time  from  Cyrus  to  Nehe- 
miah?  All  these  writers,  so  clearly  presuppose  the  existence  of  a 
Jerusalem  during  this  period,  that  he,  who  needs  to  be  further  argued 
with,  is  not  worth  the  trouble. 

But  as  the  terminus  a  quo  in  the  prophecy  before  us  is  defined,  so 
can  it  be  placed,  neither  with  some  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  nor 
with  others  in  the  second  year  of  Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspes,  nor, 
lastly,  with  others,  in  the  seventh  year  of  Ariaxerxes.  Until  the 
twentieth  year  of  Artazcrxes,  the  new  city  of  Jerusalem  was  an  open, 
thinly  inhabited  village,  exposed  to  all  aggressions  from  its  neigh- 
bours, sustaining  the  same  relation  to  the  former  and  the  latter  city, 
as  the  huts  erected  after  the  burning  of  a  city,  for  the  first  protection 
from  rain  and  wind,  do  to  those,  which  are  still  uninjured,  or  which 
have  been  rebuilt.  In  the  broad  space,  a  few  poor  dwellings  ap- 
pear among  the  rubbish,  which  lies  around  the  city  in  such  heaps, 
that  it  is  diflScult  for  one  to  complete  the  circuit  of  it. 

We  first  remove  the  objections,  which  have  been  brought  against 
this  view  of  the  condition  of  Jerusalem,     In  Hag.  1  :  4,  it  is  said, 


382  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

"  Is  it  a  time  for  you  to  dwell  in  your  ceiled  houses,  and  my  house 
is  laid  waste  ?  "  But  we  can  no  more  draw  a  conclusion  from  this, 
as  to  the  condition  of  the  whole  city,  than  we  cg,n  infer  from  Is. 
1  :  15,  ("Your  hands  are  full  of  blood,")  and  v.  21,  ("Righteous- 
ness dwelt  in  her,  but  now  murderers,")  that  Jerusalem  was  entirely 
filled  with  murderers.  If  there  were  only  some  ceiled  houses,  — 
and  who  would  deny  this  ?  —  the  prophet  had  sufficient  reason,  in 
order  to  render  the  antithesis  more  obvious,  to  make  use  of  the 
strongest  expressions.  An  appeal  is  farther  made  to  Ezra  4  :  12, 
where  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  write  to  Artachschasta  (Sraerdis), 
"  Be  it  known  to  the  king,  that  the  Jews,  who  have  come  from  thee 
to  Jerusalem,  build  the  rebellious  and  wicked  city  and  complete  its 
walls  and  restore  its  ruins";  comp.  v.  16,  "We  make  known  to 
the  king,  that  when  this  city  is  built  and  its  walls  completed,  thou 
wilt  have  no  portion  on  this  side  of  the  river."  To  be  sure,  if  this 
account  came  from  the  author  of  the  book  of  Ezra,  or  were  found 
in  a  letter  of  the  Jews  to  the  Persian  king,  it  would  evince,  that  even 
soon  after  the  return  from  exile,  and  long  before  Nehemiah,  the 
Jews  had  at  least  made  an  attempt  to  restore  the  city  to  its  former 
state,  but  at  the  same  time,  that  this  attempt  had  failed.  As  it  is, 
however,  it  proves  only,  that  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  were  gross 
calumniators.  Le  Clerc  has  remarked,  "  H(B  vero  mercB  erant  ca- 
lumnicB.  Tcmplitm  enim  solum  instaiirare  coeperant,  ct  domus  pri- 
vaias,  in  quibus  habita7-ent" ;  and  that  this  remark  is  correct,  is 
evident,  because  not  a  word  is  said  before  and  after  of  the  building 
of  the  walls.  With  exactly  the  same  right  as  the  attempted  rebuild- 
ing of  the  walls  is  here  inferred,  might  it  be  concluded  from  Neh. 
6  :  6,  7,  ("  Thou  and  the  Jews,  ye  think  to  rebel, —  and  thou  wilt 
be  their  king, —  also  thou  hast  set  up  prophets,  who  shall  cry  out 
concerning  thee  to  Jerusalem :  king  of  Judah,")  that  it  was  the 
object  of  Nehemiah,  to  shake  off  the  Persian  yoke,  and  make  himself 
king.  When  the  prohibition  of  the  usurper  Smerdis,  caused  by  this 
writing,  was  repealed  by  his  death,  which  followed  soon  after,  the 
building  of  the  temple  merely  was  carried  forward  under  Darius  the 
son  of  Hystaspes,  Ezra  5  :  6.  Had  the  allegations  of  the  enemies  been 
well  founded,  would  not  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  also  have  been 
recommenced  ?  Finally,  an 'appeal  is  still  made  to  Neh.  1:3,"  And 
then  they  said  to  me  (those,  who  had  come  from  Jerusalem  to  the 
Persian  court),  those  who  remain,  who  are  left  of  the  captivity  there 
in  the  city,   are  in   great   affliction   and  disgrace,  and  the  wall   of 


DETERMINATION   OF   THE    TERMIJYUS  Ji    QUO.         383 

Jerusalem  is  broken  down,  and  her  gales  burnt  with  fire."  It  is 
asserted,  after  the  example  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  from  this  it 
necessarily  follows,  that  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  had  been  rebuilt  by 
those  who  had  returned,  and  then  a  second  time  destroyed  by  the 
surrounding  nations.  For  the  devastation  of  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
not  unknown  to  Nehemiah,  and  could  be  no  new  ground  of  his 
lamentation.  But  what  necessity  is  there  for  supposing,  that  those 
who  came  to  Nehemiah  announced  any  thing  entirely  new  ?  That 
the  walls  and  gates  were  not  then  rebuilt,  he  knew,  indeed,  but  the 
bustle  of  the  court  had  withdrawn  his  attention  from  the  subject. 
Now  he  'had  a  lively  sense  of  the  contradiction  between  the  visible 
appearance  and  the  promise,  and  he  was  led  thereby  to  an  earnest 
intercession,  which  laid  the  foundation  for  the  removal  of  this  con- 
tradiction- The  inference  is  neither  better  j)or  worse  than  that  from 
the  impression  which  the  reading  of  the  law  made  on  Josiah,  to  his 
former  entire  unacquaintance  with  it.  Can  we  conclude,  from  the 
circumstance,  that,  according  to  Neh.  8  :  9,  the  people  wept,  on 
hearing  the  law  read  by  Ezra,  that  they  had  previously  not  the  least 
knowledge  of  it?  Besides,  "  they  are  in  great  affliction  and  disgrace," 
sustains  the  relation  of  effect  and  cause,  to  "  the  walls  are  destroyed." 
Nehemiah  had  never  so  deeply  considered  before,  that  the  destruction 
of  the  walls  would  be  attended  with  such  ruinous  consequences,  and 
so  entirely  hinder  the  rebuilding  of  the  city,  since  it  would  expose 
its  inhabitants  to  every  species  of  disgrace  and  injury  from  their 
neighbouring  enemies.  It  appeared  to  him  therefore,  now,  in  an 
entirely  different  light,  and  therefore  awakened  his  sorrow,  hi.s  inter- 
cession, his  resolution  to  render  active  assistance.  That  this  de- 
struction of  the  walls  and  the  gates  is  that  by  the  Chaldeans,  and 
that  it  continued  until  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  we  prove  by  the 
following  reasons.  1.  In  a  manner  entirely  similar,  the  Chaldean 
devastation,  in  respect  to  walls  and  gates,  is  described.  Lam.  2  :  8,9, 
comp.  also  2  Kings  25  :  10.  2.  The  enemies  of  the  Jews  know- 
only  of  one  long  past  destruction  ;  comp.  Neh.  3  :  34,  where  San- 
ballat  says,  "  What  do  the  withered  (the  feeble)  Jews.  Will  they 
make  the  stones  alive  out  of  the  heaps  of  rubbish,  where  they  are 
burnt?  "  3.  The  book  of  Ezra  says  not  one  word  of  the  rebuilding 
of  the  walls.  And  yet  it  is  inconceivable,  that  an  event  should  have 
been  passed  over  in  silence,  the  importance  of  which  is  evident, 
since  the  enemies  of  the  Jews,  when  it  was  about  to  take  place, 
sought  to  hinder  it  by  cunning  and  force,  and  were  at  nothing  more 


3i84  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

enraged.  From  the  second  part  of  Zechariah,  composed  after  thes 
sixth  year  of  Darius,  (chap.  14  :  10  sq.,  comp,  with  several  passa- 
ges of  Nehemiah,  there  cited,)  it  appears  that  in  the  time  of  both 
these  prophets,  the  walls  and  gates  were  still  in  precisely  the  same 
condition,  in  which  the  Chaldeans  had  left  them ;  that  the  \-ety  same 
fragments,  which  they  had  spared,  and  no  other,  were  still  standing. 
Comp.  further  Neh.  3:8.  "And  as  they  completed  (as  we  must 
translate  on  account  of  the  fut.  c.  vav.  conv.,  which  excludes  the 
idea  of  ]jlusqua7tiperf.  and  on  account  of  v.  34)  Jerusalem  until  the 
broad  wall,"  from  which  it  appears  that  there  was  no  occasion  to 
rebuild  the  broad  wall,  westward  from  the  gate  of  Ephraim,  which, 
according  to  the  cited  passages,  remained  standing,  (comp.  2  Chron. 
26  :  9,)  since  it  still  continued,  on  account  of  the  manner  in  which 
it  had  been  strengthened  bji  Uzziah.  5.  It  is  in  itself  highly  im- 
probable, that  the  Jews,  before  Nehemiah,  even  made  an  attempt  to 
rebuild  the  walls  and  gates.  In  the  edict  of  no  Persian  king  was 
there  even  a  trace  of  the  permission  to  do  this  being  given  to  them. 
And  that  this  was  implied  of  itself,  who  would  venture  to  assert? 
It  is  a  very  different  thing  to  suffer  a  defenceless  people  to  return  to 
their  native  land,  and  to  supply  them  with  the  means  of  defence, 
which,  in  case  of  a  general  rebellion,  they  might  use  even  against 
the  giver  himself  The  latter  presupposes  a  confidence,  which  we 
do  not  find  among  the  Asiatic  monarchs,  who  well  knew  that  their 
power  depended  only  on  the  weakness  of  their  subjects ;  a  confidence 
which,  in  this  instance,  was  produced  in  a  very  unusual  way,  only 
by  the  near  relation  which  Nehemiah  sustained  to  Artaxerxes. 
They,  however,  if  they  ventured,  on  their  own  responsibility,  to  do 
what  was  not  permitted,  could  the  less  hope  for  connivance,  since 
they  were  surrounded  by  malicious  enemies,  who  sought  by  every 
means  to  awaken  the  jealousy  of  the  Persian  king.  If  this  had 
already  been  effected  by  falsehood,  how  much  more  must  the  Jews 
expect  the  worst,  if  they  gave  a  real  ground  for  complaint,  by  over* 
stepping  the  king's  command. 

This  refutation,  of  what  has  been  urged  against  the  view  we  have 
given,  of  the  condition  of  Jerusalem  until  the  time  of  Nehemiah, 
contains,  at  the  same  time,  in  part,  the  positive  proof  of  it,  which, 
therefore,  we  need  now  only  to  complete. 

In  Zechariah  the  condition  of  Jerusalem  appears  throughout,  a 
provisional  one.  In  future  times,  according  to  v.  16,  the  measuring 
line  should  first  be  drawn  over  Jerusalem ;  the  present  belongs,  ac- 


DETERMINATION   OF   THE    TERMLXUS  A    QUO.         385 

cording  to  v.  12,  still  to  the  peiiod  of  the  affliction,  not  to  that  of  the 
restoration  ;  it  is  still  a  remnant  of  the  Chaldean  servitude.  Ac- 
cording to  chap.  2,  the  future  shall  first  complete  the  destruction  of. 
Babylon  and  the  building  of  Jerusalem  ;  nay,  what  has  hitherto  taken 
place,  in  reference  to  the  latter,  is  so  insignificant,  that  it  does  not 
even  come  into  consideration,  that  the  prophet  speaks  only  as  of 
an  entire  rebuilding.  Comp.  especially  v.  5,  "  And  see  there  a  man, 
in  his  hand  a  measuring  line ;  and  he  said.  Where  goest  thou?  And 
he  said.  To  measure  Jerusalem,  to  see  how  great  will  be  her  breadth, 
and  how  great  her  length."  Chap.  T  :  7,  the  past,  where  Jerusalem 
was  sitting  and  free,  T\)h^;)  n.ptj^',  is  contrasted  with  the  present. 
Jerusalem  is  therefore  now  still  a  city,  which,  Dtvn  xS,  "  sits  not,  but 
lies  down,"  comp.  on  Zech.  9  :  5.  Chap.  8  :  5,  the  prophet  promises, 
that  "  the  streets  of  the  city  will  hereafter  yet  be  full  of  boys  and  girls, 
playing  in  them  " ;  and  how  little  there  was  in  the  present  to  justify 
this  promise,  appears  from  the  fact,  that  (v.  6)  he  finds  it  necessary 
to  point  those  to  the  divine  omnipotence,  who  regarded  such  a  turn 
of  affairs  as  strange  and  incredible. 

If  now,  since  the  book  of  Ezra  furnishes  nothing  for  our  purpose, 
we  turn  to  Nehemiah,  the  same,  if  not  a  still  more  mournful  image, 
presents  itself  to  our  view.  That  the  number  of  the  inhabitants  was 
very  small,  appears  even  from  the  expression,  "  the  remnant,  who 
have  remained  of  the  captivity  there  in  the  city."  It  appears  to 
follow  from  this,  that  the  small  number  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jeru- 
salem had  still  diminished,  in  the  time  between  Zechariah  and 
Nehemiah.  Weary  of  the  constant  oppression  of  the  enemies,  who 
had  directed  their  attention  especially  to  Jerusalem,  the  people  may 
have  scattered  themselves  over  the  rest  ot  the  land.  Especially, 
however,  does  chap.  2  :  3  and  5,  show  the  absurdity  of  placing  the 
restoration  of  the  city  in  the  time  before  Nehemiah.  Nehemiah 
there  says  to  Artaxerxes,  "The  city,  where  the  graves  of  my  fathers 
are,  lies  waste,  n^^.n,  and  its  gates  are  burnt  with  fire.  —  Send  me 
to  Judea,  to  the  city  of  the  graves  of  my  fathers,  that  I  may  build  it," 
n333Xl.  It  hence  appears,  that  the  difference  of  the  condition  of 
Jerusalem  then,  from  its  condition  during  the  exile,  was  so  small 
as  to  be  entirely  overlooked,  and  the  former  could  be  described,  just 
as  the  latter  is,  e.  g.,  in  the  chapter  before  us.  That  Nehemiah  did 
not  perhaps  exaggerate  before  the  king  of  Persia,  appears  from  v.  17, 
where,  in  Jerusalem  itself,  he  describes  the  condition  of  the  city  in 
the  same  manner  ;  "Ye  see  the  affliction  in  which  we  are ;  Jerusalem 

VOL.  II.  49 


386  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

is  laid  waste,  and  her  gates  burnt  with  tire."  Very  significant  also 
is  Neh.  7:4;  "  The  city  was  wide  and  great,  and  only  a  few  people 
in  it,  and  there  we/e  no  houses  built."  This  passage  refers  to  the 
time  immediately  after  the  completion  of  the  walls  of  the  city.  In 
reliance  on  the  divine  promise,  they  had  given  to  them  their  ancient 
circumference  ;  now,  however,  there  was  the  most  striking  dispro- 
portion between  the  extent  of  the  city  and  the  amount  of  what  it 
contained.  The  few  houses  seemed  in  the  broad  space  entirely  to 
vanish. 

We  have  hitherto  shown,  that  the  beginning  of  the  restoration  of 
the  city  cannot  be  placed  before  the  lime  of  Neheniiah ;  we  now 
show  that  it  was  made  by  him.  That  at  a  later  period  he  was  re- 
garded as  the  rebuilder,  not  only  of  the  walls  and  gates,  but  also  of 
the  city  itself,  appears  from  Jes.  Sir.  49,  13  :  Ntff.uov  inl  noli)  to 
fivrjf^ioovt'or,  jov  tyfigmTog  IjI-uv  Tiix^  Tiimuy.oxa  y.ul  OTfjOuvTog  nv'kaq 
xttl  [.to;;loi'g,  xal  aviyuQavxog  tm  oIk  omd a  ijfioir.  Joshua  and 
Zerubbabel,  on  the  contrary,  are  extolled  (v.  12)  only  as  rebuilders 
of  the  temple.  Still  we  can  produce  a  far  stronger  proof  from 
Neherniah  himself  In  close  connexion  with  chap.  7:4,  which  is 
interrupted  only  by  the  relation  of  what  happened  between  the  pur- 
pose and  its  execution,  Neherniah  relates,  chap.  11:  1,  2,  what 
he  did  in  order  to  increase  the  population  of  Jerusalem.  By  his 
influence,  all  the  heads  of  the  people,  in  the  first  place,  removed  from 
the  country  into  the  city ;  then  a  tenth  part  of  all  the  rest  of  the 
people,  according  to  lot,  were  compelled  to  do  the  same.  And, 
finally,  a  large  number  of  families  voluntarily  removed  from  the 
country  into  the  city.  This,  which  at  first,  on  account  of  the  sud- 
den disruption  of  all  relations  which  it  involves,  appears  as  a  sacri' 
fice,  arising  from  a  Theocratical  disposition,  must  afterwards  have 
frequently  happened  in  the  case  of  those,  who  were  not  led  by  such 
a  motive.  Jerusalem,  as  the  only  fortified  city  of  the  land,  possessed 
such  an  advantage,  that  every  one,  whose  circumstances  would  in 
any  measure  allow  it,  would  be  induced  to  choose  it  for  his  resi- 
dence. The  building  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  "  there  shall 
be  no  more  reproach,"  are  placed  as  connected  with  each  other, 
Neh.  2  :  17.  Partly  for  this  reason,  and  partly  because  Jerusalem 
was  the  seat  of  the  sanctuary,  no  one  of  the  Jews,  who  still  continu- 
ed to  return  from  their  dispersion,  would  readily  fix  his  dwelling- 
place  elsewhere.  Many  would  certainly  be  induced  to  return,  pre- 
cisely on  account  of  the  intelligence  of  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem. 


DETERMINATION   OF  THE    TERMmUH  Jl    QUO.        387 

How  prosperously  and  rapidly  the  city  henceforth  advanced,  while 
in  the  long  period  from  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  to  Nehemiah,  it  had 
made  no  progress,  will  be  apparent  from  the  passages  of  heathen 
writers,  hereafter  to  be  cited. 

If,  now,  we  seek  to  determine  still  more  accurately  the  tcrnmius  a 
quo,  we  find  it  to  be  the  prayer  of  Nehemiah,  for  the  restoration  of 
the  city  ;  chap.  1.  In  consequence  of  the  hearing  of  this  prayer, 
the  divine  decree  for  the  rebuilding  of  the  city  went  forth  ;  and,  in- 
deed, this  is  given  in  v.  25  as  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  70  weeks. 
To  the  hearing  of  this  prayer,  Nehemiah  (comp.  chap.  2  :  8,  18.)* 
refers  all  that  follows,  particularly  tiie  favorable  audience  that  Ar- 
taxerxes  gave  him.  This  prayer,  however,  falls  in  the  month  Chis- 
leu,  in  the  third  month  of  the  civil  year,  in  the  twentieth  year  of 
Artaxerxes,  from  the  time  of  whose  reign,  therefore,  in  the  chron- 
ological reckoning  of  the  70  weeks,  we  have  to  subtract  only  19 
complete  years,  and  then  we  have  the  fcrmrnu:^  a  quo  of  Daniel's 
prophecy. 

We  must  still  examine  some  objections,  which  have  been  brought 
against  the  terminus  a  quo  assumed  by  us,  after  the  example  in 
general  of  the  most  and  best  interpreters,  as  well  as  that  of  Jul. 
Africanus  in  Jerome,  who,  on  the  whole,  perceived  the  truth  in 
reference  to  the  prophecy,  only  he  calculated  according  to  lunar 
years,  t  1.  "Daniel  must  necessarily  have  been  living  at  the  time 
of  the  edict,  which  is  here  spoken  of,  otherwise  it  could  not  serve  to 
console  him,  and  he  would  not  have  known  where  he  should  begin 
to  reckon  ;  his  own  prophecy,  therefore,  would  have  been  to  him 
unintelligible."  Thus  Hassencamp,  Ucber  die  70  Wochen,  p.  9,  ff. 
But  this  objection  proceeds  on  the  erroneous  assumption,  that  all 
was  then  imparted  to  Daniel  merely  for  himself,  while,  according  to 
the  correct  view,  he  was  only  an  organ,  by  which  God  made  dis- 
closures, which  in  part  could  not  be  understood  in  their  whole  ex- 
tent till  centuries  afterwards.  We  say  according  to  the  correct 
view.  For  it  is  that  which  lies  in  the  book  of  Daniel  itself.  The 
vision,  chap.  8,  shall  be  shut  up,  according  to  v.  26,  until  a  far 

*  Bengel,  Ordo  Temp.  p.  346,  "  Mandata  regiim  (iliKB-ovra  ^iyfiuTx,  ut  habet 
phrasis  Luc.  2,  ])  illi  verbo  subserviebant." 

t  A  mode  of  reckoning,  which,  as  it  is  nevei"  found  among  the  Hebrews,  is  so 
entirely  destitute  of  all  ground,  that  we  need  not  stop  to  refute  it;  comp.  in 
opposition,  Vitringa,  1.  c.  p.  260;  Frank,  Sijst.  Chronolog.  I.  1.  §  8.,  Ideler, 
Chronologie,  I.  p.  490,  ff. 


388  THE  SEVEiNTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

distant  time  of  I'lilfilment.  Daniel  himself  wonders  at  this,  v.  27, 
and  no  man  understands  it.  According  to  chap.  12,  v.  4,  the  whole 
preceding  prophecy  is  sealed  up  until  the  time  of  the  end  ;  then  will 
many  investigate  it,  and  great  will  be  the  agreement.  Chap.  12  :  7, 
the  angel  gives  a  determination  of  time.  Daniel  hears  it  and  under- 
stands it  not,  and  prays  the  angel  for  clearer  discoveries,  v.  8.  He 
answers,  v.  9,  that  he  cannot  impart  these  to  him,  because  the 
prophecy  is  shut  up  and  sealed  until  the  last  time;  comp.  on  this 
passage,  Bcitr.  I.  p.  215,  flf.  In  especial  reference  to  the  last  cited 
passage,  it  is  said,  1  Pet.  1  :  10-  12,  "  The  prophets  have  inquired 
and  searched,"  in  reference  to  the  future  salvation.  It  was,  how- 
ever, revealed  to  them,  that  the  prophecy,  given  through  their  instru- 
mentality, was  not  destined  for  them,  but  for  those  living  at  the  time 
of  the  fulfilment,  Daniel  need  not  know  where  he  should  begin  to 
reckon;  it  was  sufficient  if  he  could  only  infer  from  the  prophecy 
itself,  that  he  need  not  yet  begin,  that  the  terminus  a  quo  had  not 
yet  arrived.  The  accurate  reckoning  belonged  only  to  those  of  a 
later  period,  and  even  for  these  there  remained,  before  the  fulfilment, 
so  much  darkness,  (partly  on  account  of  the  method  of  determining 
the  terminus  a  quo  itself,  where,  as  in  all  the  rest  of  the  prophecy, 
the  effort  is  obvious,  to  avoid  on  the  one  hand  objective  indefinite- 
ness,  and  on  the  other  such  clearness,  for  those  who  lived  before 
the  fulfilment,  as  would  have  converted  the  prophecy  into  a  history, 
and  partly  on  account  of  the  absence  of  an  accurate  chronological 
investigation  of  the  whole  period,  as  it  is  manifest  even  in  Josephus,) 
that  they  must  content  themselves  with  ascertaining  from  the  proph- 
ecy about  the  time  of  the  appearing  of  Christ ;  and  that  this  has 
actually  been  accomplished,  in  respect  to  the  more  intelligent,  can 
be  historically  proved.  A  subjective  insight  into  the  prophecy,  cor- 
responding to  its  objective  definiteness,  was  reserved  for  the  times 
after  the  fulfilment.  —  The  assertion  however  i^s  erroneoiis,  that,  this 
terminus  a  quo  being  assumed,  the  prophecy  could  have  afforded  to 
Daniel  no  consolation.  Was  not  then  the  that  of  itself  a  rich  source 
of  comfort?  And  then  Daniel  was  not  entirely  uncertain  as  to  the 
when.  The  when  of  the  return  from  the  exile  was  accurately  known 
to  him.  He  was  aware  that  only  two  years  were  yet  to  elapse. 
Cyrus,  who  was  to  accomplish  it,  was  already  on  the  stage  of  history. 
That  the  return,  however,  could  not  be  separated  from  the  finished 
restoration  by  a  long  series  of  years,  seemed  to  lie  in  the  nature  of 
the  case.     The  prediction  might  be  the  more  consoling  to  Daniel, 


DETERMINATION    OF   THE    TERMINUS  A   qVO.  389 

because  he  supposes  both  to  be  much  nearer  to  each  other  than  they 
really  were.  That  he  actually  did  this,  can,  perhaps,  be  inferred 
from  the  deep  sorrow,  which,  according  to  chap.  10,  he  expresses, 
when,  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus,  the  rebuilding  of  the  Theocracy 
met  with  an  unexpected  hinderance ;  comp.  Bcitr.  A  more  accu- 
rate determination  of  the  period  between  the  terminus  ad  qucm  of 
the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah,  and  the  terminus  a  quo  of  that  before  us, 
would  only  have  served  to  dishearten  those  who  were  returning,  or 
entirely  to  prevent  them  from  coming  back  ;  in  favor  of  which, 
without  any  such  object,  so  k\\  comparatively  decided. 

2.  "  Quanta  erat  calamitas,  tantum  hcncjicii  exopiahatur  et  pro- 
mittcbatur.  Uno  tempore  templum  et  urbem  vastarant  Chaldaii ;  in 
minis  et  templum  et  urbs  jacebant,  quum  Daniel  oraret ;  qiiare  uti 
prcedictio  vaMitatis  Jerem.  21  :  10,  etc.,  sic  descriptio  vastitalis  et 
(Bdijicationis  sub  urbis  mentione  templum  quoquc  innuit.  Hinc  omnia 
Daniel  precibus  complectebafur,  urbem,  montem  sanctum,  populum, 
sanctuarium.  Eademque  omnia  complectitur  rcsponsio  per  angelum 
allata."  Bengel,  Ordo  Tempor.  p.  343.  But  all  this  proves  nothing 
more,  than  that  in  the  divine  disclosure,  the  temple  also  must  be 
considered.  This  appears  also  indirectly,  since  in  the  beginning  of 
the  70  weeks,  or  of  the  restoration  of  the  city,  it  is  presupposed  as 
already  completed.  For  how  could  the  city,  without  the  temple,  be 
well  called  the  holy  city?  The  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  the 
t'emple  also,  after  the  end  of  the  70  weeks,  presupposes  that  it  had 
been  rebuilt.  But  to  assert,  that  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  and 
the  city  must  necessarily  happen  at  the  same  time,  is  the  same  as  to 
say,  that  the  historical  facts  must  be  different  from  what  they  are. 
If  both  events  are  really  separated  from  each  other,  why  also  in  the 
prophecy  should  not  one  of  them  merely  be  placed  as  the  terminus 
a  quo  ?  And,  indeed,  that,  from  which  the  70  weeks  of  years  being 
reckoned,  they  received  at  the  definite  termijius  ad  qucm  their  com- 
pletion. 

To  the  investigation  of  this  terminus  a  quo,  we  here  subjoin  that 
respecting  the  historical  confirmation  of  what  is  given,  as  properly 
belon^ng  to  the  first  period;  the  7  weeks  beginning  with  this  ter- 
minus a  quo.  The  restoration  of  the  city  shall  extend  entirely 
through  it,  and  be  completed  with  its  termination.  This  falls,  — 
and,  as  will  hereafter  be  shown,  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxer.xes  is 
the  year  455  before  Christ,  —  in  the  year  406,  two  years  before  the 
end  of  the  nineteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius  the  Second,  the  sue- 


390  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

cessor  of  Artaxerxes.  And  here,  in  reference  to  the  demonstration 
of  the  agreement  of  prophecy  and  fulfilment,  we  must  speak  with 
modesty,  partly  on  account  of  the  nature  of  the  object,  which  is  not 
one  accurately  defined  and  limited,  partly  on  account  of  the  extreme 
deficiency  of  our  records  of  this  period,  since  Josephus  passes  over 
it  in  total  silence.  These  modest  expectations,  however,  we  are 
able  in  an  unexpected  way  to  surpass. 

The  most  remarkable  testimony  is  furnished  by  Herodotus,  whose 
history  cannot  have  been  composed  before  the  year  408,  because  he 
relates  events  which  fell  in  this  year  and  the  preceding,  comp.  Clin- 
ton, Fasti  Hellenici,  p.  85,  and  especially  Dahlmann,  Forschungen, 
I.  p.  98,  ff. ;  and  not  much  later,  because  otherwise  quite  too  great  an 
age  would  be  attributed  to  him.  What  he  says,  therefore,  respecting 
the  greatness  of  Jerusalem,  can  tolerably  well  be  applied  to  the  time 
of  the  end  of  the  7  weeks.  We  must,  indeed,  allow  to  ourselves  an 
assumption,  the  proof  of  which  must  be  reserved  for  another  place, 
viz.  that  the  Kadytis  of  Herodotus  is  Jerusalem.  But  we  venture 
to  do  this  the  more  readily  since  the  case  speaks  for  itself,  and  since 
the  former  learned  vindications  of  this  opinion,  as  that  by  Lightfoot 
{Opp.  t.  II.  p.  408),  by  Prideaux  (I.  p,  106  sq,),  by  Cellarius  (3,  13, 
ed.  Schwarz,  II.  p.  456),  by  Heine  {Obscrvv.  sacrce,  lib.  I,  c.  5,  p. 
63),  by  the  acute  author  of  the  Ohservatio  dc  Cadyti,  magna  SyricB 
urbe  (in  the  nova  var.  script,  coll.  fasc.  I.  Halle,  1716),  by  Zorn  (on 
HecatcBus  Abder.  p.  94),  by  Dahlmann  (^Forschungen,  II.  p.  75),  are 
by  no  means  refuted  by  the  treatise  of  Hitzig,  and  since  after  him 
Niebuhr,  also,  (in  the  first  volume  of  the  hist.  phil.  Schriften,  Ah- 
handlung  uber  die  Armen.  Chronik  des  Eusebius,)  and  Bahr  (He- 
rodoti  MuscB,  I.  p.  922,)  have  joined  these  defenders.  Herodotus 
speaks  of  Kadytis  in  two  places.  The  former  (2,  159,  utiu  8a  xi]v 
finxrjv  KaSvTLV,  nohv  T^g  ^'vglrjg  iovaav  nsydlrjv  siXs)  refers,  indeed, 
to  the  time  before  the  exile,  to  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Pharaoh 
Necho,  after  Josiah  had  fallen  in  the  battle  of  Megiddo.  But  yet 
Herodotus  describes  Jerusalem  as  a  city  which,  even  in  his  time, 
was  still  great.  But  more  important  is  the  second  passage,  .3,  5 : 
UTio  yaQ  .fPoLvlxrjq  p.ixQi'  ovgav  tcov  Kadmiog  nohog,  ?;'  f  art  2v^v  lav 
JlaXaiarivoiv  xuXsofxevuv '  uno  8i  KadvTiog,  iovar,g  nohog  (we  Ifiot 
8ox£8l)  ^agSioiv  ov  noXXu  iXdaaovog,  x-  x.  X.  That  the  predicate 
"  great,"  in  the  former,  is  to  be  taken  in  its  full  sense,  is  evident 
from  the  comparison  with  Sardis;  this  very  ancient  city  had  also 
retained,  under  the  Persian  dominion  and  later,  the  greatness  and 


DETERMINATION   OF   THE    TERMIKUS  A    qUO.         391 

population,  which  it  had  formerly  possessed,  as  a  residence  of  the 
Lydian  kings.  This  appears,  aiiiorig  other  sources,  from  Pausanias, 
Lacon.  p.  175,  ed.  Wech.  :  JIv  yuQ  dtj  t»J?  "Aaiag  t^^c  zu'rw  (.isyiatov 
[iSQOg  tTjvixuvia  »]  ylvdla,  xal  at  J^ugdsig  tiXovtoj  ts  xal  naQaoKtvfi 
7iQOH%ov'  TM  rs  aaxqamvovTi  f'm  ■d^aXdaaij  rovio  oixrjxi^Qiov  anedadfixTo, 
xa&dnsQ  ye  ai'TO)  ^uailil  t«  ^ovoa.  Pliny  designates  (Hist.  Nat.  5,  29, 
"  Celeb ratur  maxime  Sardibus,")  this  city  as  the  oi'nament  of  all 
Lydia ;  Strabo,  p.  C25,  as  one  of  great  antiquity  and  extent ;  and 
the  last  predicate  is  so  constantly  given  to  it  (comp.  also  Ovid, 
Metam.  II,  137.  "  Vade,  ait  ad  magnis  virinum  Sardibus  amnem"), 
that  it  seems  to  have  been  a  standing  epithet. 

Another  testimony,  belonging  indeed  to  a  later  period,  but  not  less 
remarkable  on  that  account,  is  that  of  Hecataeus  Abderita,  a  writer 
of  the  time  of  Alexander  and  Ptolemy  Lagus,  (comp.  concerning  him, 
Beitr.,  I.  p.  281,)  in  a  fragment  in  Joseph,  lib.  I.  c.  Ap.  §  22,  and  in 
Eusebius,  Prcep.  Evang.  lib.  IX.  c.  4  :  law  yuQ  xav  ^vdaiav  ra  fiev 
noXkcc  o;(vga/j.aTa  xaTCc  ti]V  /wgav  y.cu  xoofiat '  (ila  ds  noXig  oxvqa, 
Ttsvxrjycovta  fidXioTa  axadlwv  Trjv  mglfiExgov '  ^v  olxovoi  fisv  uv&gunav 
nfgl  dcadsxa  ^vgtddsg,  xalovai  8'  cevxi]v  "ifgoaolvfia,  on  which  Scali- 
ger  remarks,  "  Vides,  quanta  fuerit  Hieros.  whs,  qtiam  totius  Ori- 
entis  ornamentum  vere  vocare  potcrant  tempore  Hecatm^ 

As  a  special  characteristic  of  the  restoration,  to  take  place  in  the 
7th  week,  it  is  mentioned  in  the  prophecy  that  it  would  happen  in 
a  troublesomB  time,  in  angnstia  et  pressura  temporum.  This  also 
exactly  coincides  with  the  result.  One  cannot  sufficiently  wonder, 
how  the  divine  blessing,  concealed  beneath  the  cross,  could  still  be 
so  efficacious,  that,  in  a  comparatively  short  time,  in  place  of  a  heap 
of  rubbish,  a  city  should  arise,  inferior  in  greatness  to  few  in  Asia. 
How  entirely  suitable  to  the  commencement  of  this  period  was  the 
predicate  of  a  time  of  distress,  is  evident  from  Neh.  chap.  4.  Har- 
assed by  surrounding  enemies,  the  builders  were  obliged  to  carry 
arms  in  one  hand,  while  they  labored  with  the  other;  their  strength, 
exhausted  by  the  labors  of  the  day,  was  again  called  into  requisition 
by  watching  at  night.  And,  even  after  the  completion  of  the  build- 
ing, the  affliction  and  toil  still  continued.  This  appears  from  the 
lively  description,  Neh.  9 :  36,  37,  "  Behold  we  are  still  servants, 
and  the  land  that  thou  hast  given  to  our  fathers,  to  eat  its  fruit  and 
its  good  things,  behold  we  are  servants  in  it.  And,  it  gives  its  in- 
crease for  the  kings,  whom  thou  hast  set  over  us,  on  account  of  our 
sins,  and  they  reign  over  our  bodies,  and  over  our  cattle,  according 


392  >     THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

to  their  pleasure,  and  in  great  distress,  nSi;  n"j^5,  are  we."  Of  this 
also  the  prophecies  of  Malachi,  %'hich  belong  to  the  period,  afford  a 
clear  proof.  He  has  perpetually  to  contend  with  those  who  murmur 
against  God,  on  account  of  the  distressing  condition  of  the  new 
colony,  and  were  in  danger  of  being  led  thereby  to  total  unbelief. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  DETERMINATION  OF  THE   TERMINUS  AD  QUEM. 

The  extreme  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  prophecy,  the  period  at 
which  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  imparting  of  the  everlasting  righ- 
teousness, &c.  should  be  completed,  falls  in  the  end  of  the  70  weeks. 
It  is,  however,  erroneous  to  lay  this  as  the  foundation  of  the  chrono- 
logical reckoning,  because  it  is  designated  by  no  single,  accurately 
limited  fact.  Such  an  one  on  the  contrary  we  find,  however,  in  the 
close  of  the  69th  week  ;  and  we  adopt  this  terminus  ad  quern,  the 
public  appearing  of  Christ,  his  anointing  with  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit, 
more  readily  as  the  ground  of  our  calculation,  since,  which  is  very 
remarkable,  in  the  history  of  the  fulfiltnent  it  appears  also  designated 
with  the  same  chronological  exactness,  as  here  in  the  prophecy  ;  more 
accurately,  indeed,  than  any  other  point,  as  the  birth,  or  the  resur- 
rection, or  the  ascension  of  Christ. 

We  read,  Luke  3  :  1,  iv  i'let  ds  mvxiy.aidty.aio)  trig  riyifxoviag 
Ti^egiov  xulaciQog,  rj/ffjorsvovTO^  Iloviiov  lliXdiov  Trjg  "lovdaiag,  — 
iyivtxo  ^ijfxa  &ioii  fni  'Icouvitjv.  According  to  this  the  public  ap- 
pearing of  John  the  Baptist  and  of  Christ  falls  in  the  year  782 
U.  C.  An  attempt  has  indeed  been  made  on  different  grounds, 
partly  to  rescue  the  authority  of  several  fathers,  whose  dates  differ 
from  this,  partly  in  order  to  unsettle  the  firm  historical  grounds 
of  the  sacred  history,  to  render  this  determination  useless.  But 
with  very  little  success.  For  when  Paulus  and  Kuinol,  e.  g.,  re- 
mark, that  it  is  uncertain  what  mode  of  reckoning  of  the  years  of 
Tiberius  is  here  employed,  Ideler  {Chronologie,  I.  p.  418,)  has  al- 
ready proved,  in  opposition,  that  history  in  general  knows  no  other 
mode  than  that  from  the  beginning  of  his  actual  reign,  after  the 
death  of  Augustus  ;  and  when  they  assert,  that  Luke  determines 
only  the  year  in  which  John,  not  that  in  which  Christ  ^publicly 
came  forward,  it  is  left  out  of  view,  that  even  the  accurate  deter- 


CHRONOLOGICAL  DETERMINATION  OF  TERM.  .iD  QUEM.  393 

mination  of  the  time  of  the  appearing  of  John,  and  the  immediate 
connexion  of  the  appearing  of  Christ  therewith,  without  a  new  date, 
shows  that  both  fall  in  the  same  year.  Bengel  has  well  remarked  : 
"  Certe  non  id  cgit  Lucas,  ut,  introitu  prcecursoris  exactt  niitato, 
initiwn  ab  ipso  domino  factum  nonnisi  obiter  tangeret,  std  pracipuam 
posterioris  curam  habuit.  Opportune  tamen  Joliannem  conjungit,  ne 
longiori  intervallo  prcBcessisse  crcdatur."  To  the  coincidence  of  the 
appearance  of  both  in  the  same  year,  —  perhaps  separated  by  the 
period  of  six  months,  —  we  are  also  led  by  xat  ainog  rjV  6  ^jaovg 
wait  hwv  TQidxovTa  ag^of-if^voi:,  in  v.  23.  If  we  interpret,  "  also 
Jesus  himself,"  it  follows  that  John,  also,  at  his  entrance  on  his  office 
{aQxcfxtvoq)  was  about  thirty  years  old,  and  of  course,  smce  John  was 
only  six  months  older  than  Christ,  that  he  came  forward  only  six 
months  earlier.  If  we  translate,  "and  Jesus  himself.''  then  it  is 
presupposed,  even  by  this  reference  to  John,  that  the  preceding  desig- 
nation of  time  in  the  history  of  the  world  is  here  also  to  be  supplied, 
and  that  it  only  receives  an  addition  through  the  mention  of  the  age 
of  Christ ;  which,  again,  as  it  was  not  accidental,  that  Christ  did  not 
enter  upon  his  office  until  the  completion  of  his  thirtieth  year,  but 
in  accordance  with  the  legal  appointments  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  were  also  applicable  to  John,  settles  likewise  the  age  of  the 
latter.  Entirely  without  meaning  is  the  objection  against  the  coin- 
cidence of  the  year  of  Christ  and  of  John,  which  has  been  deduced 
from  V.  21  compared  with  Matt.  3 :  5.  For,  had  the  extent  of  Judea 
been  ten  times  as  great,  yet,  such  vi^as  the  general  excitement,  and 
religious  intercourse  carried  on  by  means  of  the  capital,  a  period  of 
about  half  a  year  would  have  been  completely  sufficient  to  awaken 
the  attention  of  the  whole  land.  Finally,  the  opinion  of  Sancle- 
raente,  cited  by  Ideler,  1.  c  p.  419,  that  the  determination  of  time 
does  not  reter  to  the  appearance  of  John  and  of  Christ,  but  to  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  the  latter,  does  not,  as  Ideler  supposes,  de- 
serve, previous  to  its  rejection,  a  thorough  examination  before  the 
tribunal  of  the  critics,  but  is  a  fit  subject  for  Turkish  justice. 


50 


394  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 


THE  AGREEMENT  OF  PROPHECY  AND  FULFILMENT  WITH  RE- 
SPECT TO  THE  DISTANCE  OF  THE  TERMINUS  A  QUO  FROM 
THE  TERMINUS  AD  QUEM. 

According  to  the  prophecy,  the  terminus  a  quo,  the  twentieth 
year  of  Artaxerxes,  is  separated  from  the  terminus  ad  quern,  the 
public  appearance  of  Christ,  by  a  period  of  69  weeks  of  years,  or 
four  hundred  eighty-three  years.  If,  now,  we  compare  history  with 
this,  it  must  appear,  even  to  the  most  prejudiced,  in  the  highest  de- 
gree remarkable,  that  among  all  the  current  chronological  determi- 
nations of  this  period,  not  one  differs  over  ten  years  from  the  testi- 
mony of  the  prophecy.  This  wonder  must  rise  to  the  highest  pitch, 
when  it  appears  from  an  accurate  examination  of  these  determina- 
tions, that  the  only  one  among  them,  which  is  correct,  makes  the 
prophecy  and  history  correspond  with  each  other,  even  to  a  year. 

Happily,  to  attain  this  end,  we  are  not  compelled  to  involve  our- 
selves in  a  labyrinth  of  chronological  inquiries.  We  find  ourselves, 
in  the  main,  on  sure  ground.  All  chronologists  agree,  that  the  com- 
mencement of  the  reign  of  Xerxes  falls  in  the  year  485  before 
Christ,  the  death  of  Artaxerxes,  in  the  year  423.  The  difference 
concerns  only  the  year  of  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Ar- 
taxerxes. Our  problem  is  completely  solved,  when  we  have  shown 
that  this  falls  in  the  year  474  before  Christ.  For  then  the  twentieth 
year  of  Artaxerxes  is  the  year  455  before  Christ,  according  to  the 
usual  reckoning,*  =  299  U.  C. 

Add  to  this,  483  years. 

782  U.  C. 
We  should  probably  have  been  saved  the  trouble  of  this  investiga- 
tion, had  not  the  error  of  an  acute  man,  and  the  want  of  independ- 
ence in  his  successors,  darkened  what  was  in  itself  clear.  Accord- 
ing to  Thucydides,  Artaxerxes  began  to  reign  shortly  before  the 
flight  of  Themistocles  to  Asia.  Deceived  by  certain  specious  argu- 
ments, hereafter  to  be  examined,  Dodwell,  in  the  Annall.  Thucyd., 

« 

*  The  intelligent  reader  will  peiceive  that  the  author  has  intentionally  made 
his  investigation  entirely  independent  of  the  difficult  inquiries  respecting  the 
year  of  the  birth  of  Christ,  which,  in  his  judgment,  have  in  recent  times,  by  the 
introduction  of  uncertain  astronomical  combinations,  particularly  by  Milnler  and 
Ideler,  be«n  led  far  astray. 


DISTANCE  OF  TERM.  A  QUO  FROM   TERM.  AD  qUEM.     395 

placed  both  events  in  the  year  465  before  Christ.  The  thorough 
refutation  of  Vitringa,  in  the  cited  treatise,  remained,  strange  as  it 
may  appear,  unknown  to  the  philologians  and  historians,  even  as  it 
seems  to  those  of  Holland,  as  Wesseling.  The  view  of  Dodwell,  adopt- 
ed also  by  Corsini  in  the  Fnsta  Attica,  became  the  prevailing  one,  at 
which  we  cannot  wonder,  when  we  considfer  how  seldom,  in  modern 
times,  chronological  investigations  in  general  have  been  fundamental 
and  independent;  when,  e.  g  ,  we  observe  that  Poppo,  a  generally 
esteemed  recent  editor  of  Thucydides,  in  a  thick  volume  entitled 
in  Thucydidem  Cojiimvntdrii  polilici,  gcograph.,  chronologici,  fur- 
nishes, in  reference  to  the  last,  nothing  more  than  a  reprint  of  the 
school  edition  of  the  chronological  tables  collected  from  Dodwell, 
excusing  himself  with  an  odio  quodam  invetcrato  totius  hujus  dis- 
ciplincB  !  Clinton  also  [Fasti  HeUenici,  lat.  vert.  Kriiger,  Leipz., 
1830),  though  he  clearly  perceives,  that  Dodwell  has  confused  the 
whole  chronology  of  this  period  (comp.,  e.  g.,  pp.  248-253),  has  not 
been  able  to  free  himself  from  him  in  the  most  important  points,  though 
he  successfully  opposed  him  in  several ;  and  thus  the  confusion  only 
becomes  still  greater,  since  now  neither  the  actual  chronological 
succession  of  events,  nor  the  one  ingeniously  invented  by  Dodwell, 
any  longer  remains.  Nevertheless,  the  truth  is  advanced  by  this 
increased  confusion.  For  now  the  harmony  introduced  by  Dodwell 
into  the  fictitious  history  is  destroyed.  The  honor,  however,  of  having 
again  discovered  the  true  path,  belongs  to  Kriiger  alone,  who,  after 
more  than  a  hundred  years,  as  an  entirely  independent  inquirer,  co- 
incides with  Vitringa,  in  the  same  result,  and  in  part  in  the  employ- 
ment of  the  same  arguments.  In  the  acute  treatise,  Ueber  den 
Cimonischen  Frieden,  (in  the  Archiv  f.  Philologie  und  Pddagog. 
von  Seehode,  I.  2.  p.  205,  ff.,)  he  places  the  death  of  Xerxes  in  the 
year  474  or  473,  and  the  flight  of  Themistocles  a  year  later.  This 
treatise  may  serve  to  shame  those,  who  reject  in  the  mass  the  grounds 
of  our  opinion,  (to  the  establishment  of  which  we  now  proceed,)  with 
the  remark,  that  the  author  has  only  found  what  he  sought.  Who- 
ever does  not  feel  capable  of  entering  independently  upon  the  inves- 
tigation, should  at  least  be  prevented  from  condemning,  by  the 
circumstance,  that  a  learned  man,  who  has  no  other  design  in  view, 
than  to  elucidate  a  chronologically  confused  period  of  Grecian  history, 
gives,  for  the  event  which  serves  to  determine  the  terminus  a  quo  of 
our  prophecy,  the  precise  year,  which  places  prophecy  and  fulfilment 
in  the  most  exact  harmonv. 


396  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

We  examine  first  the  grounds  which  seem  to  favor  the  opinion, 
that  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  commenced  in  the  year  465.  1.  "The 
flight  of  Themistocles  must  precede  the  transfer  of  the  dominion  of 
Greece  from  Athens  to  Sparta  by  several  years.  For  this  happened 
during  the  siege  of  Byzantium,  when  the  treasonable  efforts  of  Pausa- 
nias  first  commenced;  the  flight  of  Themistocles,  however,  was  a 
consequence  of  the  complaint,  which  was  raised  against  him,  out  of 
the  documents  found  after  the  death  of  Pausanias.  But  Isocrates 
says,  in  the  Panathenaikos,  that  the  dominion  of  the  Lacedemonians 
had  endured  ten  years.  The  expedition  of  Xerxes  taken  as  the 
terminus  a  quo,  this  transfer  falls  in  the  year  470."  But  we  may 
spare  ourselves  the  labor,  which  Vitringa  takes,  to  invalidate  this 
alleged  testimony  of  Isocrates,  since  all  recent  scholars,  in  part  in- 
dependent of  one  another,  agree  that  Isocrates  speaks  of  a  ten  years' 
dominion,  not  before,  but  after  that  of  the  Athenians  ;  comp.  Coray, 
on  Pan.  c.  19.  Dahlmann,  Forschungen,  I.  p.  45.  Kriiger,  p.  221. 
Clinton,  p.  250,  ff.  2.  That  Themistocles  in  the  year  472  was  still 
in  Athens,  Corsini  infers  {Fasti  Att.  III.  p.  180)  from  yEl  lib.  9.  c.  5. 
According  to  this,  Themistocles  sent  back  Hiero,  who  was  coming 
to  the  Olympic  games,  asserting,  that,  whoever  had  not  taken  part  in 
the  greatest  danger,  could  not  be  a  sharer  of  the  joy.  (The  fact  is 
also  related  by  Plutarch.)  Now,  as  Hiero  Ol.  75,  3  (478)  began 
to  reign,  only  the  Ol.  77  (472)  could  be  intended.  But  who  does 
not  at  once  perceive,  that  the  reference  to  the  games  of  the  Ol.  76 
(476)  was  far  more  obvious,  since  the  occurrence  presupposed  that 
the  fisyiozog  xwv  xirdvvmv  was  still  fresh  in  remembrance  1  3.  Ac- 
cording to  this  supposition,  Xerxes  would  reign  only  eleven  years; 
Artaxerxes,  on  the  contrary,  fifty-one.  This  is  in  opposition  to  the 
testimony  of  the  Can.  Ptolem.  (comp.  thereon  Ideler,  I.  p.  109,  ff.), 
which  gives  to  Xerxes  twenty-one,  and  to  Artaxerxes  forty-one  years ; 
and  of  Ctesias,  who  gives  to  Artaxerxes  forty-two  years,  and  of  some 
other  writers  ;  compare  the  passages  in  Bahr  on  Ctesias,  p.  184. 
Ceteris  paribus,  this  argument  would  be  wholly  decisive.  But  when 
other  weighty  authorities  are  opposed  to  it,  it  is  not  of  itself  suffi- 
cient to  outweigh  them.  The  canon  has  high  authority,  only  where 
it  rests  on  astronomical  observations,  which  is  here  not  the  case. 
Otherwise  it  stands  on  the  same  ground  as  all  other  historical  sources. 
The  whole  error  was  committed,  as  soon  as  only  an  id  in  an  ancient 
authority  was  confounded  with  a  xd ;  for  when  a  reign  of  twenty-one 
years  had  thus  been  attributed  to  Xerxes,  the  shortening  of  the  reign 


DISTANCE  OF  TERM.  Ji  QUO  FROM  TERM.  JiD  QUEM.    397 

of  Artaxerxes  to  forty-one  years,  necessarily  followed.  Wesseling 
(on  Diod.  12,  64,)  attributes  forty-five  years  to  Artaxerxes,  thus 
without  hesitation  rejecting  the  authority  of  the  canon.  —  To  these 
arguments,  already  adduced  by  others,  we  subjoin  the  following. 
4.  It  seems  to  be  evident  from  Ctesias,  chap.  20,  that  Artaxerxes 
was  born  a  considerable  time  after  the  commencement  of  the  reign 
of  Xerxes.  Ctesias,  after  relating  it,  proceeds  :  ya^tfT.  8t  3!iQir]g 
Ovocpa  ^vyaziqa  'y}i.iiaTQiv  teal  yheiai  aviot  nalg  /taQitaioq,  y.al  tTigog 
fina  dvo  tir]  'XisidcaTirii,  xal  tii  "^QittUgirjC.  If  he  relates  the  events 
in  the  true  chronological  order,  Artaxerxes  in  the  year  474  could  at 
most  have  been  seven  years  old.  On  the  contrary,  however,  all 
accounts  agree,  that  at  the  death  of  Xerxes,  although  still  young, 
(comp.  Justin,  3,  1,)  he  was  yet  t>f  a  sufficient  age  to  be  capable  of 
reigning  himself.  We  must  not  be  satisfied  with  the  answer,  that  it 
is  very  improbable  that  Xerxes,  who  was  born  at  the  beginning  of 
the  thirty-sixth  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius,  (comp.  Herod.  7,  2,) 
and  was  already  34  -35  years  old  at  his  death,  was  not  married  until 
so  late  a  period.  Ctesias  himself  frees  us  from  the  embarrassment 
into  which  we  were  thrown  by  his  inaccuracy.  According  to  chap. 
22,  Megabyzus  was  already  married,  before  the  expedition  against 
Greece,  with  a  daughter  of  Xerxes,  who,  already  mentioned,  chap. 
20,  if  Ctesias  is  there  chronologically  accurate,  could  not  have  been 
born  before  that  time.  According  to  chap.  2S,  Megabyzus,  immedi- 
ately after  the  return  of  Xerxes  from  Greece,  complained  to  him  of 
the  shameful  conduct  of  this  wife  of  his.  5.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  Ahasuerus  of  the  book  of  Esther,  is  the  same  as  Xerxes. 
But  the  twelfth  year  of  this  king  is  there  expressly  mentioned,  chap. 
3:  7,  and  the  events  related  in  the  following  context  fall,  in  part, 
about  the  end  of  the  same  year.  But  this  difficulty  vanishes,  as  soon 
as  we  include  the  years  of  the  co-regency  of  Xerxes  with  Darius. 
According  to  the  full  account  in  Herodot.  7.  chap.  2-4,  Xerxes, 
two  years  before  the  death  of  Dariu5,  was  established  by  him,  as 
king,  comp.  e.  g.  chap.  4.  :  unids^s  8e  (Saailtji/.  JIsQar/ai  /Jaquog  Sig^ia. 
Of  the  custom  of  the  Hebrew  writers  to  include  the  years  of  a  co- 
regency,  where  it  existed,  we  have  a  remarkable  example  in  the  ac- 
count concerning  Nebuchadnezzar  (comp.  Beitr.  I.  p.  63).  But  we 
find  even  in  the  book  of  Esther  itself,  plain  indications  of  this  mode 
of  reckoning.  The  account  of  the  great  feast,  chap.  1,  is  placed  in 
its  true  light  by  this  supposition.  The  occasion  of  it  was  the  actual 
commencement  of  the  reign  of  Xerxes,  though  we  need  not  on  this 


398  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

account  exclude,  what  has  hitherto  been  regarded  as  the  exclusive 
object,  consultations  with  the  nobles  respecting  the  expeditions  about 
to  be  undertaken.  What  is  related,  chap.  2  :  16,  then  falls  precisely 
in  the  time  of  the  return  of  Xerxes  from  Greece,  while  otherwise, 
and  this  is  attended  with  difficulty,  about  two  years  after  that  event. 

We  now  proceed  to  lay  down  the  positive  grounds  for  our  view  ; 
and  in  the  first  place,  the  immediate,  and  then  the  mediate  proofs, 
which  latter  are  far  more  numerous  and  strong,  since  they  show,  that 
the  flight  of  Themistocles,  which  must  precede  the  reign  of  Arta- 
xerxes,  cannot  possibly  be  placed  later  than  473  before  Christ. 

To  the  first  class,  belong  the  following.  1.  It  must  appear  very 
strange  to  those,  who  assume  a  twenty-one  years'  reign  of  Xerxes, 
that  the  whole  period  from  the  eleventh  year,  is  a  complete  tabula 
rasa.  The  biblical  accounts  stop  short  at  the  close  of  the  tenth 
year.  Ctesias  relates  only  one  inconsiderable  event  after  the  Grecian 
war,  chap.  28,  which  occurred  immediately  after  its  termination.  No 
later  writer  has  ventured  to  introduce  any  thing  into  the  ten  years, 
which,  according  to  our  view,  the  permutation  of  an  i  and  x  adds  to 
his  age. 

2.  We  possess  a  twofold  testimony,  which  places  the  return  of 
Xerxes  from  Greece,  and  his  death,  in  so  close  connexion,  that, 
without  rejecting  it,  we  cannot  possibly  assume  a  fifteen  years'  reign 
after  this  return,  but  are  rather  compelled  to  place  his  death  not 
beyond  the  year  474.  The  first  is  that  of  iElian,  Var.  Hist.  13,  3 : 
slr«  inavildwv,  nlaxiara  av&QOjnwv  ani&avsv,  anoaqiayEig  rvxTag  iv  rjj 
EvvT]  vno  X6V  vlov.  The  second,  that  of  Justin,  3,  1.  "Xerxes  rex 
Persarum,  terror  antea  gentium,  hello  in  GrcEciom  infeliciter  gesto, 
ctiam  suis  contemtui  esse  coepit.  Quippe  Artabanus  jyrafectus  ejus, 
dejiciente  quotidie  regis  majestate,  in  sptm  regni  adductus,  cum  septem 
robustissimis  Jiliis,"   etc. 

3.  The  testimonies'  of  Justin,  1.  c,  respecting  the  age  of  his  sons 
at  his  death,  are  not  reconcilable  witii  the  twenty-one  years'  reign 
of  Xerxes.  "  Securior  de  Artaxerxe,  puero  admodum,  fingit  regem 
a  Dario,  qui  erat  adolescens,  quo  maturius  regno  potirctur,  occisum." 
If  Xerxes  reigned  twenty-one  years,  his  first-born,  Darius,  according 
to  a  comparison  of  Ctesias,  chap.  22,  could  not  at  his  death  have 
been  an  adolescens,  but  at  least  thirty-one  years  old.  On  the  con- 
trary, if  eleven  years'  reign  be  assumed,  these  determinations  are 
entirely  suitable.  Darius  was  then  towards  twenty-one  years  old; 
Artaxerxes,  according  to  Ctesias,  chap.  20,  near  four  years  younger 


DISTANCE  OF  TERM.  A  qUO  FROM  TERM.  AD  qUEM.     399 

than  Darius,  about  seventeen.  This  determination  shows  also,  that 
it  cannot  be  objected  ag-iinst  a  fifty-one  years'  reign  of  Artaxerxes, 
that  it  would  give  iiim  too  great  an  age.  The  suggestion  can  be  re- 
futed by  the  simple  remark,  that  the  length  of  his  life  remains  exactly 
the  same,  whether  he  reigned  fifty-one  or  forty-one  years.  If  he  as- 
cended the  throne  at  seventeen,  his  life  terminated  at  sixty-eight. 

4.  According  to  the  most  numerous  and  weighty  testimonies,  the 
peace  of  Cimon  was  probably  concluded  after  the  battle  of  the  Euryme- 
don  (before  Christ  470).  Now  as  all  agree  that  this  peace  was  con- 
cluded with  Artaxerxes,  the  commencement  of  his  reign  must,  in  any 
event,  be  placed  before  470.     Comp.  Kriiger,  1.  c.  p.  218. 

5.  The  history  of  Nehemiah  is  scarcely  reconcilable  with  the 
supposition,  that  Artaxerxes  reigned  only  forty-seven  years.  After 
Nehemiah  had  accomplished  all  that  is  related  in  chap.  1  -  12  of  his 
book,  he  returned  to  Persia  to  discharge  the  duties  of  his  office,  at 
court.  This  hap[>ened  according  to  13  :  6,  in  the  thirty-second  year 
of  Artaxerxes.  The  time  of  his  return  is  not  accurately  determined. 
It  says  merely,  after  a  considerable  time,  the  D'??;;  ]'pS.  That  his 
absence,  however,  must  have  continued  a  whole  series  of  years,  ap- 
pears from  the  relation  of  that  which  took  place  in  the  mean  time. 
The  law  against  marriage  with  foreign  women,  to  the  observance  of 
which  the  people  had  bound  themselves  anew,  chap.  10:  30,  was 
first  violated  during  his  absence;  then  again  by  a  decree  of  the  peo- 
ple, executed  in  all  severity,  13:  1-3,  and  then  again  broken,  as 
appears  fi-om  the  fact,  that  Nehemiah,  at  his  return,  according  to 
V.  23,  found  a  great  many  foreign  women  in  the  colony.  That  these 
marriages  had  already  existed  for  some  time,  appears  from  v.  24, 
where  it  is  said,  that  the  children  of  them  had  spoken  half  in  the 
language  of  Ashdod,  and  could  not  speak  Hebrew.  A  long  absence 
is  also  implied  in  the  other  abuses  which  Nehemiah,  according  to 
chap.  13:  10  sq  ,  found  on  his  return.  He  saw  the  fruits  of  the 
former  labors  almost  destroyed.  The  same  is  also  evident  from  the 
prophecies  of  Malachi,  which  were  delivered  exactly  in  the  time 
between  the  two  periods  of  Nehemiaji's  presence  at  Jerusalem;  comp. 
Vitringa's  excellent  Dissert,  de  vEtatt  Mai.,  in  his  Obss.  ss.  VI.  7.  t.  2. 
p.  353  sq.  The  condition  of  the  people  appears  here,  as  it  could 
have  been  only  after  they  had  already  been  deprived,  for  a  considera- 
ble time,  of  their  two  faithful  leaders,  Ezra,  who,  having  arrived 
thirteen  years  earlier,  had  cooperated  for  a  considerable  time  with 
Nehemiah,  and  Nehemiah  himself.     But,  if  we  consider  barely  the 


400  THE  SEVEiNTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

first-mentioned  fact,  the  marriages  with  foreign  women,  it  will  be 
evident,  that  a  longer  period  than  nine  years  would  be  required.  For 
each  change,  there  will  then  only  three  years  be  allowed,  and  as  this 
is  undeniably  too  little  for  the  third,  according  to  v.  24,  the  two 
first  must  be  still  more  shortened,  which  is  inadmissible.  Besides, 
we  do  not  even  have  nine  years  for  these  events,  if  the  reign  of  Ar- 
taxerxes  is  fixed  at  forty-one  years.  For  the  relation  of  Nehemiah 
presupposes,  that  Artaxerxes  was  yet  living  at  the  time  of  its  com- 
position. This,  however,  cannot  be  placed  in  the  time  immediately 
after  the  return  of  Nehemiah,  since  it  must  have  been  preceded  by 
the  abolition  of  all  these  abuses.  If,  however,  we  are  conducted 
by  the  authority  of  Nehemiah,  which  is  liable  to  no  exception,  since 
he  v/as  contemporary,  and  closely  connected  with  Artaxerxes,  a  few 
years  over  forty-one,  we  have  gained  much.  For  then  the  only  ob- 
jection to  our  determination,  the  testimony  of  the  canon,  is  com- 
pletely set  aside. 

We  must  premise  a  remark,  before  we  bring  forward  our  indirect 
proofs,  in  order  to  justify  the  connexion,  in  wliich  we  place  the  com- 
mencement of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  with  the  flight  of  Themisto- 
cles.  This  connexion  has  not,  indeed,  the  unanimous  testimony  of 
the  ancient  writers  in  its  favor.  The  vouchers  for  it  are,  Thucydi- 
des,  chap.  13^,  where  it  is  said  of  Themistocles,  who  had  come  into 
Asia,  ianifXTiH  yQafXfiaja  Iq  ^aaiXsa  ' AQTa^iqtriv  xhv  asq^ov,  vimaxl 
^ocadsvovra,  and  Charon  of  Lampsacus,  who,  according  to  Plutarch, 
Them.  chap.  27,  makes  him  in  like  manner  fly  to  Artaxerxes.  On 
.  the  contrary,  others,  as  Ephorus,  Dinon,  Klitarch,  and  Heraclides 
(comp.  Plut.  1.  c),  represent  him  as  going  to  Xerxes.  If,  now,  we 
examine  these  testimonies,  according  to  the  authority  of  the  witness- 
es,, the  decision  will  unquestionably  be  in  favor  of  that  of  Thucydi- 
des  and  Charon.  Thucydides  was  contemporary  with  Artaxerxes, 
and  was  born  about  the  time  of  the  flight  of  Themistocles.  This  prince 
of  Greek  historians  gives,  chap.  97,  as  the  cause,  why  he  relates  the 
events  between  the  Median  and  Peloponnesiau  war,  that  all  his  prede- 
cessors had  passed  over  these  events  in  silence,  and  that  the  only  one 
who  touched  upon  them,  Hellanicus,  /jgaxiag  rs  xa)  To7g  xQovoig  ovx 
axQi^cog  iixf^vrjad-r]  them,  from  which  it  is  evident,  first,  how  little 
certain  are  the  accounts  of  this  period  in  later  authors,  because  they 
can  have  no  credible  contemporary  voucher,  since  he  could  not  have 
been  unknown  to  Thucydides;  and  second,  that  Thucydides  him- 
self claims  to  be  regarded  as  a  careful  and  accurate  historian  of  thi.s 


DISTAJNCE  OF  TERM.  .1  qUO  FROM   TERM.  .ID  QUEM.     401 

period,  and  therefore  must  be  esteemed  such,  because  so  honest  a 
man  would  assume  nothing  to  himself,  which  did  not  belong  to  him. 
The  other  witness,  Charon,  was  the  less  liable  to  err,  since,  at  the 
very  time  of  this  event,  he  was  a  writer  of  history,  and  even  lived  in 
Asia.  On  the  other  hand,  the  oldest  witnesses  for  the  opposite  sup- 
position, lived  more  than  a  century  after  the  event.  Ephorus  (see  on 
his  Akrisic,  Dahlmann)  outlived  the  dominion  of  Alexander  in 
Asia;  Dinon  was  father  of  Klitarch,  who  accompanied  Alexander. 

In  weighing  these  grounds,  the  authority  of  Thucydides  and  Cha- 
ron was  unhesitatingly  followed  in  ancient  times.  Plutarch,  I.  c. 
does  this,  with  the  remark,  that  the  testimony  of  Thucydides  agrees 
better  with  the  chronological  works.  Nepos  says  :  "  Scio  j)hrosque 
ita  scripsisse,  Themistodcm  Xtrxe  regnante  in  Asiam  iransiisse  :  sed 
ego  potissimum  ThucydUli  credo,  quod  estate  proximus  de  his,  qui 
illorum  temporuin  historias  reliquerunt  et  ejusdem  civitatis  fuit." 
Suidas,  and  the  Scholiast  on  Aristoph.  Equites,  from  which  the  former 
borrowed  verbatim  his  second  article  on  Themistocles,  makes  him 
flee,  TtQog  Tov  \4QTai£g'ii]r,  lov  ZiQ^ov  tov  IIsqoov  nuiSa,  without  even 
mentioning  the  other  supposition.  And  in  this  respect,  we  have  the 
less  fear  of  contradiction,  since,  as  far  as  we  know,  all  modern  critics, 
without  exception,  follow  Thucydides  and  Charon.  We  only  stil! 
remark,  that  the  opposite  view  can  the  more  easily  be  rejected,  since 
its  origin  can  so  readily  be  explained,  either  from  the  fact,  that  this 
event  fell  on  the  border  of  the  reign  of  Xerxes  and  of  Artaxerxes, 
or  from  a  simple  confounding  of  the  two  names,  the  assumption  of 
which  is  more  easy,  the  more  frequently  it  occurs  ;  we  find  it  even  in 
Aristotle,  the  contemporary  of  those  writers,  Pol.  5,  8,  and  twice  in 
Ctesias,  chap.  35,  where  Bahr  would  make  a  change  in  opposition  to 
all  the  manuscripts,  and  chap.  44.  Comp.  Bahr  on  the  passage,  and 
Reimarus  on  Dio  Cass.  II.  p.  1370.  Finally,  the  error  might  arise 
also  from  the  circumstance,  that  the  flight  of  Themistocles  was 
placed  in  the  right  year,  but  twenty-one  years  were  attributed  to 
Xerxes,  from  which  it  necessarily  follows,  that  he  took  refuge  with 
Xerxes.  This  last  opinion  is  favored  by  the  coincidence  of  several 
contemporary  writers  in  the  same  error,  which  presupposes  some 
plausible  reason  for  it. 

We  now  proceed  to  lay  down  our  indirect  proofs.  1.  We  begin 
with  the  testimony  which  gives  precisely  tiie  year  of  the  flight  of 
Themistocles,  that  of  Cicero,  Lccl.  chap.  12.  It  is  true,  Corsini, 
1.  c.  3,  p.  180,  asserts,  that  Cicero  speaks  of  the  year  in  which  The- 

VOL.    II.  51 


402  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

mistocles  was  banished  from  Athens ;  but  we  need  only  examine  the 
passage,  to  be  convinced  of  the  contrary  :  "  Themistocles  — feat 
idem,  quod  20.  annis  ante  npud  nos  fecerat  Coriolanus."  The  flight 
of  Coriolanus  to  the  Volci  falls  in  the  year  263  U.  C,  B.  C.  492. 
The  flight  of  Themistocles  is  accordingly  placed  by  Cicero  in  the 
year  472,  a  year  later  than  by  us,  which  is  of  no  importance,  since 
the  round  number  twenty  was  the  more  suitable  to  the  object  of 
Cicero,  as*  the  more  accurate  nineteen,  for  the  Chronologists.  If 
Dod well's  view  were  correct,  there  would  be  the  space  of  twenty- 
seven  years  between  the  two  events. 

2.  Diodorus  Siculus,  who,  11,  55,  places  the  flight  of  Themisto- 
cles in  Ol.  77,  2  (B.  C.  471),  in  any  event  favors  our  determination, 
which  ascends  only  two  years  higher,  far  more  than  the  opposite  one. 
We  remark,  however,  that  he  also  places  in  the  same  year  the  resi- 
dence of  Themistocles  at  Magnesia,  and  his  death ;  and  thus  it  is 
evident,  that  whether  by  mistake  or  design,  he  compresses  the  events 
in  the  life  of  Themistocles,  which  filled  up  some  years,  into  the  year 
of  his  death.  If  this  took  place  in  the  year  471,  the  flight  must  be 
dated  at  least  as  far  back  as  473.  Our  determination  differs  only  a 
single  year  from  that  of  Eusebius,  who  relates  the  flight  of  Themis- 
tocles in  Ol.  77,  1. 

3.  But  that  which  forms  the  chief  argument,  the  whole  series  of 
transactions,  as  they  have  been  recorded  in  accurate  order,  especially 
by  Thucydides,  compels  us  without  reserve  to  place  the  flight  of 
Themistocles  not  below  the  year  473.  That  the  expedition  of  the 
allied  Greeks  under  the  direction  of  Pausanias,  against  Cyprus  and 
Byzantium,  the  capture  of  the  latter  city,  and  the  transfer  of  the 
supremacy  from  the  Lacedemonians  to  the  Athenians,  occasioned  by 
the  insolence  of  Pausanias,  fall  in  the  year  477,  we  may  regard  as 
established  beyond  dispute  by  Clinton,  p.  270  sq.*  The  view  of 
O.  Miiller  {Dorier,  II.  p.  498),  who  distributes  these  events  into  a 
period  of  five  years,  is  contradicted  by  the  expression  iv  tijSs  rfj 
Tjyinovin  of  Thucydides,  chap.  94,  whereby  the  capture  of  Byzantium 
is  brought  into  the  same  year  with  the  expedition   against  Cyprus. 

*  The  grounds  are  thus  briefly  summed  up  by  Win.,  p.  252.  "  Dodwelli  rati- 
on! neutiquam  favet  Isocratis  auctoritas.  Repugnat  rerum  gestarum  series, 
repngnat  quod  Thucyd.  significat,  Plutarchus  et  Arislides  diserte  tradunt,  re- 
pugnat denique  temporis  spatium,  quod  Atheniensium  imperio  assignant  Lysias, 
Isocrates  ipse,  Plato,  Demosthenes,  Arislides,  quibus  fortasse  addendus  est  Ly- 
curgus." 


DISTANCE  OF  TERM.  Jl  qUO  FROM   TERM.  JiD  QUEM.     403 

That  these  words  cannot  be  connected  with  what  follows,  without  a 
change  of  the  text  in  opposition  to  all  critical  authority,  is  shown  by 
Poppo.  Moreover,  the  very  last  of  these  events  is  placed,  by  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  antiquity,  in  the  year  477.  Clinton  shows, 
p.  249,  that  all  reckonings  of  the  time  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Athe- 
nians, setting  out  from  this  year,  differ  from  one  another  only  in 
reference  to  the  assumed  termination.  Also,  Thucyd.  chap.  128, 
the  expedition  against  Cyprus,  and  that  against  Byzantium,  are  con- 
nected as  immediately  succeeding  each  other.  If,  however,  Dod- 
well  were  compelled  by  the  force  of  the  arguments  to  acknowledge, 
that  these  events,  which  he  compresses  into  one  year,  do  not,  as  he 
assumes,  (p.  61,)  belong  to  the  year  470,  but  to  the  year  477,  he  would 
surely  be  compelled,  perceiving  it  to  be  impossible  to  lengthen  out 
the  thread  of  the  events  until  the  year  465,  to  give  up  the  whole  hy- 
pothesis. The  dissatisfaction  of  the  allies  was  followed  by  the  recall 
of  Pausanias.  That  this  belongs  still  to  the  same  year,  plainly  ap- 
pears, partly  from  the  nature  of  the  case  itself,  since  it  presupposes  a 
continuance  of  supremacy,  partly  from  Thucydides,  chap.  95 :  iv 
TOVT(o  ds  oi  yIay.s8aifi6viuL  y^iTmi(xnovxo  JJavauiiav,  uvaxqivovvjiq  wv 
Titqi  invv&dvovro.  Pausanias  having  come  to  Sparta,  and  been  there 
set  at  liberty,  now  betook  himself  privately  in  a  galley  to  Byzantium. 
This  cannot  have  happened  long  afterwards,  for  Thucydides,  chap. 
128,  immediately  subjoins  it,  and  what  is  of  the  most  importance, 
Pausanias  finds  the  fleet  still  at  Byzantium.  That  his  residence 
there  did  not  long  continue,  appears  from  the  account  of  Thucydi- 
des, chap.  131,  that  he  was  forcibly  expelled  thence  by  the  Atheni- 
ans. He  now  retired  to  the  colony  in  Troas ;  from  there,  he  was 
recalled  to  Sparta,  after  it  had  been  reported  that  he  kept  up  an 
understanding  with  the  barbarians.  The  Ephori  threw  him  into 
prison,  but  soon  after  released  him.  At  this  time,  his  intercourse 
with  Themistocles  took  place,  who,  being  at  the  time  already  expelled 
from  Athens,  resided  at  Argos,  and  thence  made  excursions  into  the 
rest  of  the  Peloponnesus.  That  Pausanias  then  for  the  first  time 
drew  Themistocles  into  his  plan,  when  the  latter  had  been  driven 
from  Athens,  is  asserted  by  Plutarch,  and  a  personal  intercourse  be- 
tween them  is  rendered  certain  by  all  accounts.  That  there  was  no 
considerable  period  between  this  release  of  Pausanias,  and  his  death, 
is  clear.  Pausanias  was  not  condemned,  because  there  was  no 
certain  proof  against  him.  It  is,  however,  psychologically  improbable, 
that  he  did  not  soon  afford  it,  that  he  prudently  kept  himself  from 


404  THE   SEVENTY    WEEKS   OF   DANIEL. 

giving  open  offence  for  a  series  of  years,  when  we  consider  that  he 
was  deprived  of  all  prudence  by  his  haughtiness,  arising  to  madness, 
that  he  himself  rendered  the  execution  of  his  treasonable  plan  im- 
possible ;  that,  according  to  Thucydides,  chap.  130,  he  went  about 
in  a  Median  dress,  and  caused  himself  to  be  accompanied  on  a  jour- 
ney through  Thrace  with  Median  and  Egyptian  satellites,  spread  a 
Persian  table,  made  difficult  the  access  to  his  person,  gave  free  course 
to  his  passions,  of  whom  Thucydides  himself  very  significantly  re- 
marks, xwt  xaiix^tv  T7/V  diuroiuv  ovx'ijdvvaio,  alX"  iQyoig  (^Qa/ioi  ngov- 
8rjXov,  a  Tt]  yvu^itj  /uei^ovmg  igineira  intXls  nQot^fiv,  and  of  whose 
senseless  arrogance  the  same  historian,  chap.  132,  gives  an  example, 
even  out  of  the  time  immediately  after  the  battle  of  Platea.  The 
discovery  was  effected  by  him  who  was  to  bring  to  Artabazus  the 
last  letters  to  the  king.  With  what  haste  the  transactions  were 
carried  on,  and  that  by  no  means  a  space  of  four  years  was  consumed, 
is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  king,  in  order  to  accelerate  them, 
had  expressly  sent  Artabazus  to  Asia  Minor.  His  death  immediately 
followed  the  discovery  (comp.  Thucyd.  133). .  We  surely  do  not  as- 
sume too  little,  when  we  give  to  these  events  a  period  of  three  years. 
That  we  need  not  go  beyond  this,  is  shown  by  Diodorus,  who  com- 
presses all  these  events  into  the  year  477  (OI.  75,  4.)  How  could 
he  have  done  this,  or  how  could  such  an  error  have  arisen,  if  the 
beginning  and  end  had  been  separated  from  each  other  by  a  period 
of  8-9  years?  How  impossible  it  was  for  him,  with  his  sources,  to 
place  the  destruction  of  Pausanias  far  beyond  this  time,  appears  from 
his  fiction,  which  can  in  no  other  way  be  explained,  of  a  twofold  ac- 
cusation of  Themistocles.  If,  now,  we  must  place  the  death  of 
Pausanias  about  the  year  474,  and  in  no  event  later,  the  flight  of 
Themistocles  cannot  be  placed  farther  back  than  the  year  473.  For 
Themistocles  at  the  death  of  Pausanias  had  already  been  a  con- 
siderable time  in  the  Peloponnesus.  His  accusation  followed  imme- 
diately after  the  event;  comp.  Thucydides,  1,  135;  and  the  combined 
interests  of  the  Lacedemonians,  to  whom  nothing,  could  be  more  de- 
sirable than  to  have  the  Athenians  share  their  disgrace,  and  of  the 
enemies  of  Themistocles  at  Athens  (Plut.  Them.  c.  23 :  y.urs^ouv 
l^h  avTov  yJcey.idai/.i6vioi,  y.aji]y6Q0VV  8  ol  (p&ovovvTsg  twj'  tioXitwv) 
would  cause  the  decision  to  be  hastened  as  much  as  possible.  The- 
mistocles, persecuted  both  by  the  Athenians  and  Lacedemonians, 
now  flees  from  the  Peloponnesus  to  Corcyra.  Being  denied  a  resi- 
dence there,  he  retires  to  the  opposite  continent.     In  danger  of  being 


DISTANCE  OF  TEEM.  A  QUO  FROM   TERM.  JID   qUEM.    405 

overtaken  by  his  persecutors,  (Thucyd.  chap.  136  :  y.(n  SiwxofjEvog  vno 
rwv  ngooTera/fievap  xaxu  nvariv  ?/ /co^o//;,)  he  sees  himself  compelled 
to  flee  to  Admetus,  the  king  of  the  Molossians.  Nor  can  he  have 
long  resided  there,  for,  according  to  Thucydides,  chap.  137,  he  was 
sent  forward  by  Admetus,  as  soon  as  his  persecutors  came.  And 
how  can  we  suppose,  that  they  would  have  been  long  behind  him  ? 
How  long  could  his  place  of  residence  have  remained  a  secret?  It 
is  expressly  said  by  Thucydides,  that  the  coming  of  his  persecutors, 
and  the  flight  of  Themistocles  to  Asia,  very  soon  happened  {vartgov 
ov  noXkb)).  It  is  true,  that  if  we  could  credit  the  account  of  Ste- 
simbrotus,  in  Plut.  chap.  24,  we  must  assume  that  the  residence  of 
Themistocles  with  Admetus  continued  some  months.  For  he  re- 
lated that  his  friends  brought  to  him  there,  his  wife  and  children, 
whom  they  had  secretly  conducted  out  of  Athens.  But  that  no  de- 
pendence is  to  be  placed  upon  this,  is  evident  from  the  absurd  fiction 
of  Stesimbrotus  that  immediately  follows,  which,  to  the  surprise 
even  of  Plutarch,  {eIx'  ovx  oi8^  onag  inda&ofisvog  xovjav,  •^'  xov  Oifii- 
atoTtXia  noiojv  iniXa&cfiivov,  nXtvaai  (pijaiv  x.  r.  X.,)  he  brings  forward, 
without  observing  that  the  one  fable  does  away  the  other,  viz.,  that 
Themistocles  was  sent  by  Admetus  to  Sicily,  and  had  desired  of 
Hiero  his  daughter  in  marriage,  with  the  promise  to  bring  Greece 
un.der  subjection  to  him.  Plutarch  designates  Stesimbrotus  as  a 
shameless  liar.  Pericles,  chap,  13.  That  the  sons  of  Themistocles 
remained  in  Athens,  is  manifest  from  a  relation  in  Suidas,  and  the 
testimony  of  Thucydides,  chap.  137,  and  of  Plutnrch,  that  the  gold 
was  first  sent  to  Themistocles  by  his  friends,  after  his  arrival  in  Asia, 
to  enable  him  to  reward  the  service  of  the  captain  who  brought  him 
to  Asia,  shows  at  the  same  time  the  incorrectness  of  the  assertion  of 
Stesimbrotus,  and  confirms  the  opinion,  that  Themistocles  remained 
in  no  one  place  of  his  flight  long  enough  for  his  friends  to  send  to 
him  there  the  necessary  gold.  Themistocles  was  conducted  by  Ad- 
metus to  Pidna,  and  from  there,  he  betook  himself  in  a  boat  directly 
to  Asia.  This,  accordingly,  since  between  the  death  of  Pausanias, 
and  the  coming  of  Themistocles  into  Asia,  there  could  at  most  be 
only  a  year,  can  at  latest  have  happened  in  the  year  473,  perhaps  in 
474;  and  even  in  the  former  case,  we  are  completely  justified  in 
placing  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  which  still  cannot 
have  immediately  coincided  with  the  coming  of  Themistocles,  in  the 
year  474. 


406  THE   SEVENTY    WEEKS  OF   DANIEL. 

4.  On  the  supposition  that  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of 
Artaxerxes,  and  the  flight  of  Themistocles,  fall  in  465,  an  extrava- 
gant old  age  must  be  attributed  to  Charon  of  Lampsacus.  Accord- 
ing to  Suidas,  he  was  still  flourishing  under  the  first  Darius,  Ol.  69, 
504  B.  C.  Since  now,  in  his  history,  he  mentions  the  flight  of  The- 
mistocles  to  Artaxerxes,  this  being  placed  in  465,  he  must  have  been 
employed  in  writing  history  at  least  forty  years.  This  is  not,  indeed, 
absolutely  impossible ;  but  in  a  doubtful  case  it  must  be  rejected  as 
the  more  improbable  alternative.  "  Histories  enim  non  sunt  expli- 
candcB,  —  says  Vitringa,  [Proll.  in  Zach.  p.  29,)  —  ex  raris  et  inso- 
lentibus  exemplis,  sed  ex  communi  vivendi  lege  et  ordine.  Si  res  secus 
se  habeat,  in  ipsa  historia  ascribitur  nefallut  incautos."  Compare  his 
farther  excellent  remarks  on  this  subject.  That  this  argument  is  not 
without  force,  is  evident  even  from  the  efforts  of  some  advocates  of 
the  false  chronology,  to  set  it  aside  by  cutting  the  knot.  Suidas, 
after  he  has  cited  the  abovementioned  determination  of  the  time  of 
Charon,  as  he  found  it  in  his  more  ancient  authorities,  subjoins, 
fiallov  8s  i]v  inl  tc5)/  IlEQaixwv.  Creuzer,  on  the  fragm.  historr.  GrcBC. 
p.  95,  rejects  this  date  without  farther  examination,  because  it  gives 
too  great  an  age  to  Charon. 

5.  According  to  Thucyd.  1,  136,  Themistocles,  on  his  passage  to 
Asia,  fell  in  with  the  Athenian  fleet,  which  was  besieging  Naxos. 
This  siege  of  Naxos,  however,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Thucydi- 
des,  chap.  1 00,  which  makes  all  other  arguments  superfluous,  happened 
before  the  great  victory  of  the  Athenians  on  the  Eurymedon,  which, 
according  to  Diodorus,  belongs  to  the  year  470,  and  cannot  be  placed 
later,  because  this  was  the  first  considerable  undertaking  of  the 
Athenians  against  t.he  Persians,  the  war  with  whom  formed  the  only 
ground  for  the  important  requisitions  which  they  made  upon  their 
allies;  comp.  Thucyd.  1,  94.  Hitherto,  since  the  supremacy  had 
passed  over  to  the  Athenians,  scarcely  any  thing  had  been  done 
against  the  Persians,  except ,  the  taking  of  the  unimportant  iEgon. 
Thucydides  also  leads  us  to  about  the  same  year  as  that  given  by 
Diodorus,  who  connects  the  defection  of  Thasos  (467)  with  j^^oVw 
vaxtqov,  which  cannot  stand  where  events  immediately  succeed  each 
other.  Even  for  these  reasons  the  siege  of  Naxos  and  the  flight  of 
Themistocles  do  not  fall  after  471.  If,  however,  we  consider,  that 
Naxos  was  the  first  confederate  city  with  which  the  Athenians  were 
involved  in  discord,  comp.  Thucyd.  P.  1,  98,  (which,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  as  is  rendered  especially  clear  by  the  remarks  of  Thu- 


DISTANCE  OF  TERM.  A  QUO  FROM   TERM.  AD   qUEM.     407 

cydides  and  a  comparison  of  the  later  historians,  could  scarcely  have 
first  happened  after  seven  years),  and  if  we  farther  consider  the  way 
in  which  Thucydides,  cliap.  98,  connects  the  events,  from  the  trans- 
fer of  the  supremacy  until  the  capture  of  Naxos,  with  one  another, 
we  shall,  without  hesitation,  place  the  latter  some  years  earlier,  in 
the  year  474  or  473. 

6.  The  flight  of  Themistocles  falls  at  least  three  years  earlier  than 
the  battle  on  the  Eurymedon,  because  in  all  probability  he  was  dead 
before  the  latter  event.  His  death,  however,  must  have  been  some 
years  subsequent  to  his  coming  into  Asia,  comp.  Thucyd.  chap.  138. 
One  year  passed  in  learning  the  language,  and  some  time,  in  any 
event,  was  required  for  what  is  implied  in  Tavirjg  rjQxi  tjJ?  ;^w^ac,  86v- 
Tog  x.  T.  X.  Thucydides  relates,  that,  according  to  the  account  of 
some,  Themistocles  took  poison,  advpaiov  vofilaavTcc  dvui  inmliaat, 
Paailu,  a  vniax^To.  This  presupposes  that  Themistocles  was  com- 
pelled to  fulfil  his  promises,  and  had  this  not  been  the  case  at  his 
death,  the  report,  that  Thucydides  only  in  this  instance  relied  upon 
himself,  could  not  have  arisen.  Plutarch  expressly  connects  the 
death  of  Themistocles  with  the  expedition  of  Cimon.  This  is  done 
by  several  writers,  with  the  mentioo  of  the  most  special  circumstan- 
ces, compare  the  passages  in  Staveren  on  Nep.  Than.  10,  all  which 
may  be  regarded  as  they  are  by  Cicero,  Brut.  chap.  11,  and  Nepos, 
as  fictitious,  and  yet  the  historical  basis  on  which  alone  every  thing 
depends,  the  fact  that  Thucydides  died  before  the  battle  on  the 
Eurymedon,  is  firmly  established. 

7.  Krijger,  1.  c.  p  218,  has  shown  that  the  account  of  Plutarch, 
that  Themistocles  reached  an  age  of  sixty-five  years,  forbids  us  to 
place  his  death  beyond  the  year  470,  and  therefore  his  flight  beyond 
the  year  473.  According  to  an  account  which  has  internal  evidence 
of  credibility  in  .^lian,  Var.  Hist.  III.  21,  Themistocles,  as  a  small 
boy  coming  from  school,  declined  going  out  of  the  way  of  the  tyrant 
Pisistratus.  Assuming  that  this  happened  in  the  last  year  of  Pisis- 
tratus,  B.  C.  529,  and  that  Themistocles  was  at  that  time  six  years 
old,  he  must  have  been  born  535,  and  died  470.  Nor  is  it  a  valid 
objection,  that  according  to  Plutarch,  Themistocles  was  still  living 
at  the  time  of  the  Cyprian  expedition  of  Cimon  (449,  B.  C),  and 
was  still  young  at  the  battle  of  Marathon.  For  the  former  rests  on 
a  manifest  confounding  of  the  former  event,  with  the  victory  over 
the  Persian  fleet  at  Cyprus,  which  is  supposed  to  have  immediately 
preceded  the  victory  on  the  Eurymedon,  (comp.  Diodor.  11,  60, 


408  THE   SEVEJNTY   WEEKS   OF   DANIEL: 

Dahlmann,  Forschungen,  I.  p,  69,)  and  the  latter  merely  on  a  con- 
clusion drawn  from  this  error.  "  Whoever,"  remarks  Dahlmaan, 
p.  71,  "  reads  without  prejudice  the  passage,  Thucyd.  1,  138,  will  per- 
ceive that  the  death  of  Themistocles  followed  pretty  soon  after  his 
settlement  in  Persia  ;  probably  in  the  second  year,  if  Thucydides  is 
worthy  of  credit." 

Until  all  these  arguments  are  refuted,  it  remains  true,  that  the 
Messianic  interpretation  of  the  prophecy  is  the  only  correct  one,  and 
that  the  alleged  Pseudo  Daniel,  as  well  as  the  real  Daniel,  possess- 
ed an  insight  into  the  future,  which  could  have  been  given  only  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  hence,  as  this  favor  could  have  been  shown 
to  no  deceiver,  the  genuineness  of  the  book  necessarily  follows,  and 
the  futility  of  all  objections  against  it  is  already  manifest. 


THE    LAST    WEEK    AND    ITS    HALF. 

We  showed,  that  the  last  week  begins  with  the  public  appearing 
of  the  anointed,  and  that  his  death  falls  in  the  middle  of  it,  while 
the  confirmation  of  the  covenant  extends  entirely  through  it.  There 
is  here  no  occasion  to  show,  except  in  reference  to  one  point,  the 
death  of  Christ,  how  accurately  the  prophecy  and  fulfilment  coincide. 
For  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  confirmation  of  the  covenant  being 
more  or  less  indefinite,  is  incapable  of  any  accurate  chronological 
determination.  It  is  sufficient  to  remark,  that  in  the  first  years  after 
the  death  of  Christ,  the  ixkoyi]  was  collected  from  among  the  ancient 
covenant  people,  — with  what  success  is  shown,  e.  g.,  by  the  history 
of  the  first  Pentecost, —  and  that  then  the  message  concerning 
Christ  was  carried  also  to  the  heathen,  so  that  the  prophet  might 
justly  represent  the  salvation,  as  subjectively  and  objectively  com- 
pleted in  the  end  of  the  70  weeks,  for  the  covenant  people,  of  whom 
alone  he  speaks. 

The  view,  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  separated  from  his  baptism 
by  a  period  of  three  and  a  half  years,  is  found  in  several  fathers. 
Thus  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecd.  1,10:  oid^  olog  6  [xsiaiv  riiQasTrjg  nuQi- 
axaraL  xQovog;  and  while  he  makes  an  erroneous  calculation  to  sus- 
tain his  result,  (comp.  Valesius,  Anm.  on  the  passage,)  in  Theodoret 
an  entirely  correct  basis,  almost  beyond  his  age,  is  adopted.     See  on 


THE   LAST  WKEK    AiND   ITS  HALF.  409 

the  passage,  Tom.  II.  p.  1250,  ed.  Hal. :  u  di  xic  xal  jov  xqovov  xaja- 
/jadilv  d&ihi ,  i  y.  t  ov  x  ax  vc  'la  avvfjv  ivay/illov  ^a.&riotjai ' 
(og  mot  T«  TQia  sir]  y.nl  tjfxiav  xtjQV^ag  o  xVQiog  xal  rovg  nylovg  nvxov 
(ia&i]ing  TJj  8i8(xay.uVin  y.al  roig  ^avfiaai  ^e^cxifoaag,  jots  to  na&og 
vnififivs. 

The  decision  depends  entirely  on  the  Evangelist  John.  Three 
passovers  during  the  ministry  of  Christ  are  expressly  mentioned  by 
him,  comp.  2 :  13,  C :  4,  and  then  the  last.  A  fourth  is  the  subject  of 
controversy.  According  to  what  may  be  proved  from  chap.  5:  1, 
(ftna  Tuvia  ■^v  soqi-i]  tmv  %vdakor,  y.al  avi^rj  6  'irjaovg  ug  'ifQoaohifia,) 
must  the  death  of  Christ  be  placed  in  the  fourth  or  in  the  third  year 
after  his  public  appearance. 

The  answer  of  the  question,  what  feast  is  meant  in  this  passage,  is 
greatly  simplified  by  the  circumstance,  that  in  recent  limes  it  is  gen- 
erally confessed,  that  the  choice  can  lie  only  between  the  feast  of 
Purim  and  the  Passover.  This  concession,  moreover,  rests  on  so 
good  a  ground,  that  we  can  confidently  pass  over  the  remaining  opin- 
ions in  silence.  It  appears  particularly  from  John  4  :  35,  where  the 
Lord  says.  There  are  yet  four  months  to  the  harvest,  that  at  that  time, 
before  the  feast  mentioned  chap.  5:1,  and  since  the  first  passover 
mentioned  chap.  2:  13,  eight  months  had  alreaxiy  elapsed.  For  the 
terminus  ad  quern  of  these  four  months,  is  the  new  passover,  since, 
with  the  passover,  according  to  law  and  custom,  the  harvest  in 
Palestine  began.  The  feasts  of  Pentecost  and  of  Tabernacles  of 
this  year  are  therefore  excluded,  because  both  lie  within  the  above- 
mentioned  period  of  eight  months,  and,  should  it  be  referred  to  one 
of  these  feasts  in  the  following  year,  it  would  be  equally  in  favor  of 
our  view.  It  would  thereby  be  taken  for  granted,  that  John  has 
omitted  to  mention  one  passover. 

The  assertion,  that  the  feast  of  Purim  is  mentioned,  (he  more  de- 
serves a  thorough  investigation,  since  having,  in  former  times,  been 
kept  more  in  the  background,  it  has  lately  found  many  able  de- 
fenders. The  first  place  among  them  is  occupied  by  Hug,  EinL 
Th.  2,  p.  197,  ff.  ed.  2.     He  is  followed  by  Lucke  and  Tholuck.     " 

The  chief  argument  advanced  for  this  opinion,  and  against  the 
passover,  is  the  following.  As  the  Lord  remained  at  home  till  after 
the  passover,  of  which  mention  is  made  some  days  after  his  return, 
he  did  not  appear  in  Jerusalem  from  the  time  of  the  supposed  pass- 
over,  until  this,  i.  e.  for  a  whole  year,  and  for  six  months  longer, 
until  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  and  consequently  neglected  the  duty 

VOL.  II.,  52 


410  THE  SEVENTY   WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

of  the  public  worship  of  God  for  a  year  and  a  half.  This  supposi- 
tion entirely  contradicts  the  purpose  of  Jesus  to  fulfil  even  external 
righteousness;  besides,  by  such  conduct,  he  would  have  exposed  him- 
self to  public  reproach.  — Truly  a  strange  reason;  for,  by  his  going  to 
the  feast  of  Purim,  the  case  of  Christ  would  have  been  neither  better 
nor  worse.  Attending  on  this  feast  could  not  be  reckoned  as  a  ful- 
filment of  righteousness ;  for  it  was  not  prescribed  in  the  law  of  God, 
and  it  was  only  under  this,  and  not  human  ordinance,  that  the  Son 
of  God  was  placed.  Prudential  reasons  could  just  as  little  have 
moved  him  to. this  course;  for  no  human  ordinance  required  the 
celebration  of  the  feast  of  Purim  at  Jerusalem.  If,  therefore,  the 
difficulty  were  real,  it  would  affect  the  defenders  of  this  view,  no  less 
than  ourselves.  Whoever  was  at  Jerusalem  through  the  whole  of 
the  rest  of  the  year,  and  absented  himself  only  in  the  three  feasts, 
whose  celebration  in  Jerusalem  had  been  prescribed,  was  just  as 
much  guilty  of  the  violation  of  the  law,  as  he,  who  never  set  his  foot 
in  Jerusalem.  Besides,  the  whole  difficulty  is  only  an  apparent  one. 
The  reason  why  Jesus  remained  so  long  away  from  Jerusalem,  is 
plainly  enough  given,  chap.  7  :  1  :  ov  yu(j  ij&iXtv  iv  rfj  "lovdala  mqi- 
TtaTEiv,  OIL  f'Ci]TOVv  avTov  01  'lovSuloi  nnoy.THvai.  But  this  reason 
was  completely  decisive  for  the  Lord,  according  to  the  position  which 
he  always  took  in  reference  to  the  ceremonial  law.  He  held  himself 
bound  to  the  observance  of  it,  only  so  far  as  it  did  not  conflict  with 
higher  purposes.  These  were  never  sacrificed  to  it.  Classic,  in  this 
respect,  is  the  passage,  Matt.  12 :  3.  The  Lord  there  points  those, 
who  accused  his  disciples  of  violating  the  ceremonial  law,  for  proof, 
that  it  is  not  binding  under  all  circumstances,  to  the  example  of 
David,  who,  without  being  on  that  account  blamed  in  the  Scripture, 
ate  the  shew  bread,  contrary  to  the  law.  He  next  points  to  his  abso- 
lute authority,  which  justifies  him  in  breaking  the  law,  when  this 
would  promote  his  higher  purposes.  He  calls  himself  the  Lord  of 
the  Sabbath.  He  designates  himself,  as  a  greater  than  the  temple. 
The  hour  of  Christ  was  not  yet  come;  his  presence  at  Jerusalem, 
must  have  been  an  occasion  to  his  enemies,  to  strive  to  hasten  it 
before  the  time ;  not  to  employ  the  human  means  to  avoid  this  dan- 
ger, would  be  to  tempt  God.  —  Even  for  those,  who  were  not  like 
the  Son  of  God,  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  and  of  the  feasts,  but  un- 
conditionally subject  to  the  law,  the  binding  force  of  the  outward 
religious  ordinances  of  the  law  was  daily  becoming  weaker.  Was 
ihe  temple  at  the  time  already  changed  into  a  den  of  robbers,  Luke 


THE    LAST   WEEK    AND   ITS   HALF.  411 

19:  46,  was  the  uiij^odliness  already  in  the  process  of  full  develope- 
inenf,  which  soon  afterwards  made  it  completely  a  house  of  abomi- 
nation, how  then  could  the  laws  be  applied  in  their  whole  extent, 
which  relate  lo  it  as  the  house  of  God  ?  The  temple  by  no  means 
consisted  of  lime  and  stone;  as  to  its  essential  nature,  it  was  at  that 
time  already  as  much  destroyed,  as  during  the  Babylonish  exile,  and 
the  neglect  to  visit  it  was  therefore  as  little  censurable  now  as  then, 
if  circumstances  directed  the  attention  to  that  view,  according  to 
which,  it  was  no  more  a  house  of  God. 

This  argument  is,  however,  the  only  one  which  has  been  thought 
valid  in  recent  times.  The  remaining  '^  argumentaficubuu,^'  which 
Larny,  and  D'Outrein  in  the  Bibl.  Brcm.  I.  p.  610,  have  adduced, 
we  can  therefore  well  omit,  especially  as  Lampe  has  already  thorough- 
ly refuted  them.  Let  us  then  proceed  to  lay  down  the  arguments  for 
our  own  view. 

1.  It  can  admit  of  no  doubt,  that  John  does  not  here  speak  of  a 
festum  aliqnod,  but  de^ignates  a  definite  feast.  Otherwise,  he  would 
act  in  direct  ojiposition  to  the  object,  which  the  accurate  mention  of 
the  feasts  by  him,  serves  everywhere  to  promote.  They  are  his 
dates,  according  to  which,  he  orders  the  whole  history.  He  men- 
tions the  pasoover,  accordingly,  even  where  Christ  does  not  observe 
it,  6:  4.  Every  feast  is  always  elsewhere  accurately  designated  by 
him;  and  this  is  entirely  natural,  since  an  itidefinite  feast  cannot 
serve  as  a  measure  of  time.  We  translate,  therefore,  the  feast  of  the 
Jews,  without  availing  ourselves  of  the  article  occurring  in  many 
manuscripts,  except  as  a  proof  that  this  interpretation  is  very  ancient. 
The  omission  of  the  article  should  not  have  been  objected  against  it 
by  Liicke  and  Tholuck.  According  to  a  Hebraism  as  widely  spread 
through  the  Seventy,  and  the  N.  Test.,  as  it  has  been  little  observed, 
(comp.  Ew.  p.  579,)  the  definite  article  stands  before  the  second 
instead  of  the  first  of  two  nouns,  connected  by  the  genitive  case. 
We  cite  only  a  few  from  a  number  of  examples.  Deut.  16 :  13, 
ioqxriv  twv  (jxtjvmv  (in  the  Hebr.  m'3?n  in)  noi-^oitg  oeaviia.  Matt. 
12  :  24,  fv  tJ)  ^itX^elSovl  uqxovtl  tmv  daifiovluv,  where  Fritzsche, 
because  this  use  was  unknown  to  him,  in  opposition  to  all  manu- 
scripts, proposes  to  change  the  text :  (v  B.  tw  aqxovxi  xatv  Sai^iovrnv. 
Luke  2:  11,  iv  nolu  /Ia^l8.  'J'he  Nom.  propr.,  as  also  in  Hebrew, 
where  "in  y}?  can  only  mean  the,  not  a,  city  of  David,  is  equivalent 
to  an  appellative  with  the  article.  Acts  8 :  5,  dg  Jichv  x^g  Scmnqtiag, 
in  the,  city,  the  capital  of  Samaria,  (comp.  Hcumann  and  Kuinol  on 


412  THE   SEVENTY    VVEKKS   OF   DANIEL. 

the  passage.  But  if"  it  is  established,  that  here  the  discourse  is  con- 
cerning the  feast  of  the  Jews,  y.ai.  f|.,  who  could  think  of  any  other 
feast  than  that  of  the  passover  ?  It  is  this  which  had  already  been 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  context,  chap.  2:  13.  No  other  can 
^ome  in  competition  with  it.  Among  all,  it  was  by  far  the  greatest; 
comp.  the  proofs  in  Lund,  p.  974.  The  twj'  " lovSamv  is  never  used" 
by  John  of  any  other  feast  than  the  three  great  cues  appointed  in  the 
law,  twice  of  the  passover,  otherwise  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles. 
By  what  means  can  it  be  proved,  that  the  idea  occurred,  even  at  a 
later  period,  to  place  the  feast  of  Purim  upon  a  level  with  these  feasts, 
and  particularly  the  passover?  The  passages  cited  by  Hug,  p.  200, 
do  not  refer  to  the  feast,  but  to  the  book  of  Esther.  The  feast  was 
always  regarded  more  as  a  feast  of  the  people,  than  a  religious  ordi- 
nance. The  knowledge  of  the  opposition  against  its  introduction  in 
the  outset,  has  not  been  lost,  comp.  Lighifoot  on  John  10 :  22.  And 
then  how  can  we  argue  from  that  later  period  to  the  form.er.  It  was 
entirely  natural,  that  the  feast  should  gain  in  esteem  as  the  Jews  be- 
came more  carnally  minded  ;  that  the  three  chief  feasts,  on  the 
contrary,  should  retain  their  exclusive  dignity,  so  long  as  the  temple 
stood,  and  the  whole  mass  of  the  people  went  up  for  their  celebra- 
tion to  Jerusalem. 

2.  An  invincible  difficulty  in  the  way  of  a  reference  to  the  feast 
of  Purim,  is  presented  by  the  avi^r,  6  'lijaoiig  ik  ' IfQoaoh'fia,  in  con- 
nexion with  v.  14,  from  which  it  seems  evident,  that  the  city  was 
filled  with  those  who  sought  the  festival.  That  men  did  not  journey 
to  Jerusalem  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  Purim,  arose. from  the  nature 
of  the  case.  The  feast  stood  in  no  relation  to  the  temple ;  even  in 
Jerusalem  it  was  not  celebrated  with  any  divine  service.  The  whole 
celebration  was  limited  to  reading  the  book  of  Esther,  which  was 
brought  into  the  synagogues,  to  abstaining  from  labor,  and  eating 
and  drinking.  The  feast  was  kept  among  the  Jews  of  the  disper- 
sion, at  an  earlier  period  than  by  those  of  Palestine.  We  can  abun- 
dantly show,  from  definite  testimonies,  that  a  journey  to  Jerusalem 
on  the  feast  of  Purim,  was  never  thought  of  Josephus,  Arch.  11,6, 
says  :  the  Purim  was  celebrated  by  the  Jews  of  ail  places,  and  was 
attended  by  feasting.  In  the  Talmud  Cod.  Megillah,  cap.  1, 
§  1  -3,  it  is  determined  at  what  time  the  Purim  should  be  celebrated 
in  the  cities,  which,  at  the  time  of  Joshua,  were  surrounded  with 
walls,  in  those  which  at  that  time  were  without  walls,  and  in  the 
villages;  comp.,  on  the  ground  of  these  determinations,  Vitringa,  de 


THE   LAST   WEEK   AND   ITS   HALF.  413 

decern  otiosis,  c.  18,  ifi  Ugolini  Thes.  t.  21,  p.  421  sq.  An  appeal 
cannot  be  made  in  opposition  to  this,  that  Jesus  still,  according  to 
10  :  22,  was  at  Jerusalem  in  the  Enkania,  which,  in  like  manner, 
could  be  celebrated  out  of  Jerusalem.  This  would  at  most  only  be 
of  importance,  if  Jesus  had  journeyed  to  Jerusalem  for  this  purpose. 
But  the  object  of  his  journey  was  only  to  attend  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles. He  still  remained  a  considerable  time  afterwards  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  during  his  stay  there  the  Enkania  happened.  And 
besides,  if  this  were  not  so,  still  the  Enkania,  as  a  feast  of  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  temple,  stood  in  so  close  a  relation  to  it,  that,  in  this 
instance,  many  probably  performed  what  the  law  did  not  require. 

3.  It  is  in  a  high  degree  improbable,  that  Jesus  sought  the  feast 
of  Purim,  and  neglected  the  passover,  which  happened  a  month  later. 
After  every  effort,  it  is  impossible  to  adduce  even  a  plausible  reason 
for  this.  The  cited  passage,  John  7:  1,  in  which  LUcke,  though 
with  great  hesitation,  believes  he  finds  such  a  proof,  proves  directly 
the  opposite.  In  the  feast  of  the  passover,  Christ  was  protected  by 
the  Galilean  oxlot ;  in  the  Purim  his  enemies  had  free  scope  (Mark 
14  :  2,  Liicke  on  10  :  22).  And  was  there  any  thing  in  the  nature  of 
the  feast  of  Purim,  which  could  attract  Jesus?  We  are  far  from  wishing 
to  attack  the  authority  of  the  book  of  Esther,  but  still,  in  respect  to  the 
true  standard,  its  reference  to  Christ,  it  undoubtedly  holds  the  lowest 
place  among  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Is  it  conceivable, 
that  he,  who  never  even  in  the  slightest  manner  mentions  this  book, 
whose  apostles  nowhere  appeal  to  it,  should  have  diligently,  —  as 
Hug  asserts,  —  sought  the  feast,  which  was  consecrated  to  the  re- 
membrance of  the  event  described  in  this  book,  in  order  to  manifest 
esteem  and  regard  for  it?'  And  was  indeed  a  feast  like  this,  where 
drinking  was  meritorious,  where  it  was  customary  to  drink  until  they 
could  no  longer  distinguish  between  Blessed  be  Mordecai,  and  Ac- 
cursed be  Haman,  suited  to  effect  the  object  of  the  Lord  in  all  his 
journeys  to  Jerusalem  ?  Surely  even  a  human  teacher  would  not 
thus  choose  time  and  place. 

4.  The  healing  of  the  sick  person  happened,  according  to  v.  9,  on 
the  sabbath,  and  that  this  sabbath  belonged  to  the  feast,  appears 
from  the  mode  of  the  connexion  of  v.  1  and  2,  and  also  from  v.  13. 
Here,  however,  the  feast  of  Purim  is  entirely  excluded  ;  this  could 
not  be  celebrated  on  the  sabbath,  because  the  two  were  inconsistent 
with  one  another,  and  because  the  divine  institution  could  not  give 
way  to  the  human.     If  it  happened  on  such  a  day,  it  was  deferred ; 


414  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL, 

comp.  the  proofs  in  Reland,  Antiqq.  Sacr.  IV.  9,  and  in  Schickard, 
De  Festo  Purim,  in  the  Crit.  Sacr.  VI.  p.  491  sq.  Fft. 

5.  The  sick  man  whom  the  Lord  healed,  had  been  sick  thirty- 
eiglit  years.  We  consider  this  man  as  a  type  of  the  Jewish  people, 
and  find  in  the  tiiirty-eight  years  a  reference  to  the  thirty-eight  years' 
affliction  of  Israel  on  the  journey  through  the  wilderness,  which  was 
terminated  by  the  first  passover  in  Canaan  ;  which  was  at  the  same 
time  the  feast  of  reconciliation  with  the  Lard,  after  the  immediate- 
ly preceding  renewed  circumcision  had  removed  the  reproach  of 
Egypt  from  the  people,  and  freed  them  from  the  guilt  of  the  impurity 
which  they  had  brought  with  them  out  of  Egypt,  comp.  Josh.  chap. 
5.  We  know  that  this  ground  will  appear  strange  to  some,  but  per- 
haps they  will  recover  from  their  astonishment,  if  they  more  carefully 
consider  the  many  New  Testament  analogies  in  its  favor,  as  they 
have  been  collected  in  part  by  De  Wette,  in  the  Bdtrage  ziir  Char- 
acterislik  des  Htbraismus  {Studien,  1S07,  II.  p.  245).  Is  it  indeed 
any  thing  else,  when  John,  19:  36,  refers  a  passage  which  originally 
concerns  the  Easier  lamb,  directly  to  Christ?  When,  according  to 
him,  Jesus,  in  chap.  6,  takes  occasion  from  the  nearness  of  the  pass- 
over,  to  speak  of  himself  as  the  true  bread,  and  true  flesh,  that  which 
the  unleavened  bread  and  the  Paschal  lamb  typified?  Or  when, 
chap.  7  :  37,  he  represents  himself  as  the  substance  of  a  sacred 
usage,  which  prevailed  during  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  On  this  sub- 
ject much  might  still  be  said.  The  elucidation  of  the  doctrine  of 
types,  which  are  now  entirely  neglected,  is  an  important  problem  for 
future  theologians.  Still,  we  hope  that  even  for  those,  with  whom 
this  argument  has  no  weight,  our  assertion  is  sufficiently  proved,  and 
at  the  same  time  our  problem  solved.  In  reference  to  an  important 
argument,  arising  from  a  comparison  of  the  remaining  Gospels,  see 
the  acute  essay  of  Siifskind,  in  Bengel's  Arch.  I.  p.  185  sq. 


THE    NON-MESSIANIC    INTERPRETERS. 

Among  them,  we  mention  only  those  whose  efforts  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  already  completely  antiquated,  and  therefore,  with  the 
omission  of  Eichhorn,  Ammon,  and  others,  we  shall  mention  only 
Bertholdt,  whom  Rosenmiiller  .unconditionally  follows,  Bleek  (in  the 


THE   NONMESSIANIC   INTERPRETERS.  415 

Theologischen  Zeitschrift,  III.  p.  290  sq.),  and  Hitzig,  in  the  Stu- 
dien,  I.  c.  We  confine  ourselves  at  the  same  time,  solely  to  the  refu- 
tation of  that,  which  has  not  been  already  settled  in  the  exposition. 

AH  those  interpreters  agree,  that  the  alleged  Pseudo-Daniel,  be- 
cause the  time  fixed  by  Jeremiah  had  long  been  passed  without  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecy,  has  attempted  a  sort  of  mystical  interpre- 
tation or  parody  of  the  70  years.  They  are  not  70  years,  but  70 
weeks  of  years.  They  also  coincide  in  the  following  points  ;  like 
most  of  the  Jewish  interpreters,  they  take,  as  the  terminus  a  quo,  the 
year  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  therefore  regard  the  whole 
time  of  the  desolation  of  the  city  as  included  in  the  70  weeks  ;  they 
explain  the  anointed  in  v.  25  and  in  v.  26,  as  different  persons,  and 
indeed  the  first  as  Cyrus  ;  finally,  by  the  prince  that  should  con^e, 
they  understand  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  regard  his  death,  and  the 
redemption  of  the  covenant  people,  as  the  extreme  terminus  ad  quern,  of 
the  prophecy.  In  all  these  instances,  they  have  as  a  predecessor,  Mar- 
sham,  who  may  justly  be  designated  as  a  Rationalist  embryo,  but  who 
has  at  least  the  credit  of  having  given  occasion  to  the  admirable  treatise 
of  Vitringa,  already  repeatedly  quoted.  They  differ  from  one  another 
in  the  determination  of  the  anointed,  who  should  be  cut  off,  in  v.  26. 
According  to  Bertholdt  and  Rosenmijller,  it  is  Alexander;  according 
to  Bleek  and  Hitzig,  Seleucus  IV.  Philopator,  brother  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  and  his  immediate  predecessor,  who  was  put  to  death  by 
poison.  For  he  is  plainly  meant  by  both,  although  the  former 
strangely  confounds  him  with  the  founder  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Se- 
leucidae,  Seleucus  Nicator.  The  latter  designates  him  as  Seleucus 
III.  These  views  have  already  been  sufficiently  refuted  in  what 
precedes.  What  we  here  advance  against  them,  we  may  consider 
only  as  a  work  of  supororogation. 

1.  We  do  not  perceive  how  the  alleged  Pseudo-Daniel  could  regard 
the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah,  as  not  fulfilled,  and  hence  derive  a  reason 
for  making  them  a  subject  of  parody.  These  prophecies  have  no 
reference  to  the  Messiah.  What  they  announce  as  about  to  happen 
in  the  end  of  the  70  years,  the  cessation  of  the  Chaldee  servitude, 
and  the  return  of  the  covenant  people  to  their  native  land,  was  pre- 
cisely fulfilled  at  the  appointed  time  (comp.  Bntr.  I.  p.  181).  Our 
author  himself  regards  it  in  this  light,  when  he  says,  1,  21,  that 
Daniel  lived  to  witness  the  fourth  year  of  Cyrus,  the  time  of  redemp- 
tiou  earnestly  desired  by  him,  comp.  Beitr.  I.  p.  65,  and  p.  314,  and 


416  THE    SEVENTY   WEEKS   OF   DANIEL. 

in  like  manner  is  it  so  considered  elsewhere  in  the  Scripture,  Ezra 
1:  l,2Cliron.36:21. 

2.  A  mystic  interpretation,  which  should  at  once  change  70  years 
into  490,  is  so  plainly  capricious,  that  it  could  not  be  adopted  without 
intending  to  ridicule  Jeremiah,  and  represent  him  as  a  false  prophet. 
For  how  could  the  author  suppose  that  any  one  would  regard  such 
an  interpretation  as  in  earnest.  But  can  it  be  imagined,  that  his  ob- 
ject could  have  been  in  so  gross  a  manner  to  undermine  the  authority 
of  the  older  propliets,  when  he  confesses,  v.  0,  as  the  greatest  trans- 
gression of  the  people  against  God,  that  they  have  not  hearkened  to 
the  voice  of  his  servants,  the  prophets,  who  spake  in  his  name  1 
How  could  the  alleged  Pseudo-Daniel  expect  much  weight  to  be 
laid  on  the  new  determination  of  time  to  be  given  by  him,  when,  in 
so  absurd  a  way,  he  set  aside  that  which  had  been  formerly  given  by 
a  prophet  universally  reverenced. 

3.  Even  if  the  author  had  wished  to  give  only  a  parody  of  the 
prophecies  of  Jeremiah,  still  it  was  indispensably  necessary  to  assume 
the  same  tei^mimis  a.  quo  for  the  70  weeks  of  years,  which  Jeremiah 
had  assumed  for  his  70  years.  This,  however,  in  the  two  prophecies 
relating  to  the  subject,  happened  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiachim 
(comp.  Bdtr.  1.  c).  How  then,  except  by  a  snlto  mortale,  could  the 
author  pass  over  from  this  year  to  the  lime  of  the  destruction  of  the 
city,  eighteen  years.  How  could  he  suddenly,  instead  of  reckoning 
70  years  from  the  terminus  a  quo  of  Jeremiah,  until  the  terminus  ad 
quern,  as  he  himself  has  done  in  v.  2,  and  as  the  Scriptures  every- 
where do,  assign  to  this  period  only  49  years?  Hitzig  endeavours 
to  meet  this  difficulty  by  the  supposition,  that  the  author  reckons  from 
the  date  of  the  prophecy,  chap.  29,  which  is  there  indefinite,  and 
which  ho  places  in  the  year  of  the  destruction.  But  the  date  of  this 
prophecy  is  unimportant,  since  this  is  not  placed  in  the  same  as  the 
terminus  a  quo  of  the  exile,  and  since  the  determination  of  it  is  pre- 
supposed as  known  from  the  prophecy,  chap.  25,  and  here  as  well  as 
there  the  beginning  of  the  Babylonish  servitude,  as  it  happened  in 
the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiachim,  is  firmly  established  as  such  (comp. 
Beitr.  I.  c).  Granting,  however,  that  the  date  of  the  letter  coincided 
with  the  terminus  a  qtw  of  the  70  years,  though  this  is  inconceivable, 
how  could  the  author  have  thought  of  placing  this  letter  in  the  year 
of  the  destruction  1  It  is  false  that  its  date  is  not  chronologically 
determined  in  Jeremiah.  This  prophecy  is  connected  by  a  vav  with 
that  which   immediately  precedes,  which  in  the  superscription  is  des- 


THE   ^fOl\-MESSJlANlC    INTERPRETERS.     .  417 

ignated  as  behntrintr  to  the  fourth  year  of  ZedeUiah.  The  contents 
of  both  are  closely  related ;  chap.  28  describes  how  Jeremiah  check- 
ed the  hopes,  which  were  excited  and  cherished  by  the  false  prophets, 
of  a  speedy  favorable  change  of  affairs  in  Jerusalem  ;  chap.  29,  how 
he  did  the  same  among  the  exiles.  These  hopes  were  plainly  awak- 
ened by  the  same  event  at  Jerusalem,  and  among  the  exiles.  This 
event  is  plainly  enough  announced  in  chap.  28,  Zedekiah,  in  the 
fourth  year  of  his  reign,  probably  by  means  of  a  journey  to  Babylon, 
comp.  51,  59,  had  obtained  great  freedom  and  independence,  on 
which  account  his  fourth  year,  v.  1,  is  designated  as  the  beginning 
of  his  reign.  Hence  the  hope  was  derived,  that  he  would  be  able, 
as  his  hands  were  now  free,  with  the  help  of  the  Egyptians,  to  de- 
liver himself  entirely  from  the  Babylonish  yoke,  and  compel  the 
Chaldeans  to  liberate  the  exiles.  But  if  now  we  should  place  the 
terminus  a  quo  in  this  fourth  year  of  Zedekiah,  there  would  not  be 
till  the  time  of  Cyrus,  forty-nine,  but  fifty-nine  years.  For,  from  the 
destruction  of  the  city  until  Cyrus,  there  are  not,  —  as  Hitzig  sup- 
poses, —  precisely  forty-nine,  but  fifty-two  years,  and  this  destruction 
happened  in  the  eleventh  year  of  the  reign  of  Zedekiah.  To  attrib- 
ute a  chronological  error  to  the  author,  is  the  more  unjustifiable,  since 
he  everywhere  manifests  a  very  particular  and  accurate  knowledge 
of  this  period,  and  since  in  reference  to  these  chronological  determi- 
nations, which  are  so  obvious  in  the  Scriptures,  unanimity  has  ever 
prevailed  among  the  Jews. 

4.  Against  the  destruction  as  terminus  a  quo,  we  appeal  to  the 
manifest  contradiction  of  v.  24,  with  v.  2,  according  to  which,  70 
years  were  to  be  completed  over  the  desolations  of  Jerusalem.  How 
could  the  years  which  would  be  completed  over  the  desolation,  be 
included  in  those  which  should  be  completed  over  the  city  ? 

5.  "i^T,  without  the  article,  cannot  relate  to  the  definite  beforemen- 
tioned  oi'acle  of  Jeremiah.  That  a  prophetical  annunciation  cannot 
be  thereby  understood,  but  only  a  divine  command,  is  shown  by  a 
comparison  of  i^T  N>",  from  the  going  forth  of  the  command,  that 
70  weeks  should  elapse  over  Jerusalem,  in  v.  23.  But  where  do  we 
find  in  Jeremiah  a  trace  of  any  such  divine  command  to  restore  Je- 
rusalem? That  the  discourse  relates  to  a  command,  which,  as  to 
time,  coincides  with  the  execution,  we  have  already  proved  from 
D-;?j;n  p"i^3^  W\- 

C.  If  the  prophet  wished  merely  to  lengthen  the  period  fixed  by 
Jeremiah,  still  he  must  necessarily  have  placed  here,  as  peculiar  to 
VOL.  II.  53 


418  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DAMEL. 

the  end  of  the  longer  period,  what  Jeremiah  had  predicted  as  im- 
pending at  the  end  of  the  period  determined  by  him.  Of  this,  how- 
ever, there  is  no  trace.  There  is  no  mention  whatever  in  Jeremiah 
of  any  of  the  blessings,  which,  according  to  v.  24,  belong  to  the  end 
of  the  70  weeks.  On  the  contrary,  what  Jeremiaii  places  as  belong- 
ing to  the  end  of  the  70  years,  the  cessation  of  the  Chaldean  servi- 
tude, and  the  return  to  their  native  land,  is  here  presupposed  as  hav- 
ing already  taken  place  at  the  beginning  of  the  weeks,  which  are 
determined  over  the  city  and  over  the  people. 

7.  Did  the  terminus  ad  quern  belong  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees, 
Daniel  would  be  guilty  of  so  gross  a  violation  of  chronology,  as 
would  be  irreconcilal)lc  with  the  chief  arguments  brought  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  book,  the  accurate  knowledge  of  history  which 
it  exhibits.  The  time  from  Cyrus  to  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epipha- 
nes  would  then  here  be  fixed  at  441  years  (63  weeks  of  years),  while 
m  reality  it  embraces  only  372  years.  An  error  in  the  calculation, 
therefore,  of  69  years,  must  be  assumed.  This  error  becomes  still 
more  considerable,  when  connected  with  another  assertion  of  these 
same  interpreters.  They  suppose  (comp.,  e.  g.,  Bertholdt,  p.  716) 
the  author  to  be  acquainted  with  only  four  Persian  kings  in  all,  after 
Cyrus,  and  that  he  makes  Xerxes,  as  the  last  of  them,  to  be  van- 
quished by  Alexander.  And  thus  the  Persian  period  is  shortened 
by  him  147  years,  and  this,  as  well  as  the  69  years  of  excess,  must 
be  added  to  those  of  the  Seleucidfe.  This  now  wotild  amount  to  380 
years,  and  these  must  be  divided  among  eight  kings,  including  An- 
tiochus Epiphanes.  Truly,  an  error,  for  which  there  is  not  the  most 
distant  analogy  in  the  chronological  determination  of  this  period  by 
the  most  ignorant  Jews!  In  the  Seder  Olam,  cap.  30,  its  duration 
is  determined  at  180  years.  The  error  of  Josephus  in  reference  to 
it  (comp.  Brink,  Exnmen  Chronol.  Jos.  in  Havercamp,  11.  p.  298,) 
does  not  come  into  consideration.  The  case  becomes  still  worse, 
when  we  consider,  that  Daniel,  particularly  in  reference  to  this  peri- 
od, manifests  a  knowledge  extending  to  the  smallest  particulars! 
Hence  we  perceive  what  grounds  Bertholdt  had  for  regarding  the  70 
weeks  as  a  round  and  indefinite  determination  of  time.  Is  not  this 
escape  i'rom  despair,  provided  befoj-ehand,  a  proof,  that  he  secretly 
perceives  the  difficulty  to  be  insurmountable? 

8.  If  the  prophecy  relates  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  why  is 
it  then  entirely  silent  concerning  the  restoration  of  the  city  and  the 
temple,  of  which  all  tlie  prophecies  of  Daniel  relating  to  this  time, 


THE    NON-MESSIANIC   INTERPRETERS.  419 

speak?  Why  does  it  close  with  the  mournful  i)rediction  of  the  entire 
and  lasting  desolation,  which  by  no  means  belontjs  to  that  period? 
Truly,  a  poor  consolation  for  the  afflicted  prophet!  'J'hat  is  entirely 
wanting  here,  which  deprives  of  its  terrors  the  predicted  desolation 
of  city  and  temple,  when  the  prophecy  is  referred  to  the  Messianic 
time.  In  the  time  of  tlie  Maccabees,  the  theocracy  was  indeed  ac- 
tually subverted  with  the  overthrow  (if  city  and  temple,  since  its  ex- 
istence was  at  that  timt'  rontiected  with  them. 

y.  Bertlioldt  understands,  as  we  have  said,  by  the  anointed,  chap, 
2(),  Alexander.  Mere,  however,  a  whole  swarm  of  difficulties  arise. 
This  anointed  one  is  to  die  G2  weeks  of  years  after  Cyrus,  and  yet, 
between  him  and  Cyrus,  are  to  be  only  four  kings,  each  of  whom, 
therefore,  must  reij;n  over  (nie  hundred  years,  lie  fiuist  die.nn  the 
same  week  nt'  yj-ars,  i  e  in  the  TUili,  ai  the  end  of  which  Aiitiochiis 
Epiplianes  is  to  |)eri^h.  And  yet,  between  him  and  Antioclius 
Epiphanes,  accf»rding  to  the  actual  history,  seven,  and  accordm^  to 
the  reckoning  of  Bertlioldt,  ten  kings  are  to  reign  !  We  v\ell  know 
that  Bertlioldt  lias  endea\f)ured  tf)  remove  these  difficulties,  by  the 
snppo.-ition,  that  ':)r!?<  does  not  mean  fifdr,  Imt  hifore.  But  whoever 
would  choose  to  refute  such  asserlion.s,  must  be  very  forgeMuI  of  the 
sed  fugit  and  the  est  7>inf/us.  No  stomach  has  stronger  power  of  di- 
gestion, than  that  of  those  who  wish  to  evade  the  truth!  ri'i.Tin, 
which  is  used  only  of  a  violent  death,  because  Ale.xander  did  not 
suffer  such  an  one,  is  made  to  signify  also,  a  calm  death.  A  diffi- 
culty also  ari.ses  with  Seleucus  Philopator.  The  anointed  one  is  not 
to  die  until  the  end  of  the  62  weeks,  and  therefore  in  the  70th,  and 
yet  the  end  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  falls  in  this  same  week.  But 
how  can  this  be,  since  the  latter  reigned  full  eleven  years  ?  Our 
opponents  can  the  less  assume  an  error  here,  since  they  make  the 
author  contemporary  with  the  events.  That  n^^^n  elsewhere  always 
occurs  of  a  death  of  external  violence  alone,  we  merely  observe  in 
passing,  and  only  hint  at  the  imjjossibility  which  has  already  been 
shown,  of  under.-tanding  by  n'st'D,  a  heathen  prince,  sustaining  no 
near  relation  to  the  theocracy. 

10.  The  final  reference  of  the  prophecy  to  the  time  of  the  Macca- 
bees, is  contradicted  by  the  uniform  testimotiy  of  Jewish  tradition. 
In  the  first  book  of  the  Maccabees,  constant  regard  is  ])aid  to  the 
prophecies,  chap.  8  and  11,  relating  to  that  time,  but  there  is  no 
reference  to  this,  comp.  Bcitr.  I.  p.  2(54.  That  in  the  time  inmiedi- 
ately  after  Christ,  it  was  universally  referred  to  a  still  future  destrye- 


420  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

tion,  that  by  the  Romans,  we  have  shown  in  the  same  place,  p.  265. 
To  the  passages  there  cited,  is  still  to  be  added  that,  De  Bel.  Jud.  6. 
5,  4,  afuyf/Qafi[xivov  iv  Totg  Xoyloiq  i'xovtsg,  ukwosa&ai  xrjv  nohv  xal 
TOP  vtthv,  IneiSocv  to  Uqov  yivi]iai  lergdyonov.  This,  as  Reland  per- 
ceived, can  only  refer  to  the  passage  before  us,  by  a  false  interpreta- 
tion of  ^i2.  On  the  other  hand,  the  following,  to  ds  inaqav  aviovq 
fxdhaia  nqoi  ihv  nohfiov  r,v  XQijOfiog  djxtfil^oloq  c/iolag  iv  totg  U^oig 
8vgi]^ivog  ygd^uccaiv,  x.  t.  X.  cannot,  with  Less  {Ueber  Religion, IL  p. 
70S),  and  many  others,  be  referred  to  the  passage  before  us,  since 
the  xQn^^i-og  ufiq>ijjo}.os  is  plainly  enough  designated,  as  distinct  from 
the  beforementioned  prophecy.  Just  as  little  can  we  agree  with  him 
in  deriving  from  this  prophecy  alone,  the  expectation,  at  the  time  of 
the  appearing  of  Christ,  generally  spread  abroad  among  the  Jews, 
and  by  them  throughout  the  whole  East,  that  the  Messiah  would  ap- 
pear precisely  at  that  time,  an  expectation,  which  so  many  false 
Christs  used  for  their  own  purposes.  It  certainly  rests  still  more  on 
that  of  chap.  2.  By  the  fourth  kingdom,  at  that  time,  was  rightly 
understood,  in  general,  the  Roman;  by  the  fifth,  which  should  de- 
stroy this,  the  Messianic,  comp,  Joseph.  10.  10,  4.  What,  now,  was 
more  natural,  than  that  from  the  time  when  the  Roman  power  be- 
came hostile  to  the  Jews,  the  appearing  of  the  Messiah  should  be 
confidently  expected.  How  general  the  reference  of  the  prophecy 
to  the  destruction  by  the  Romans  was,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that 
no  later  Jewish  interpreter  has  ventured  to  relinquish  this  reference, 
which  is  so  prejudicial  to  them  in  the  controversy  with  the  Christians, 
comp.  the  proofs  in  Sostmann,  p.  IS,  ff.  —  That  by  the  anointed, 
before  unbelief  had  rendered  the  true  reference  to  him  who  had-  ap- 
peared, impossible,  the  Messiah  was  generally  understood,  seems  to 
follow  from  the  circumstance,  that  this  appellation  of  him  who  was 
expected,  was  generally  prevalent  at  the  time  of  Christ.  This  pre- 
supposes its  being  grounded  in  a  highly  esteemed  prophecy,  and 
such,  in  a  special  manner,  was  the  one  before  us,  at  that  time.  It 
can  be  made  probable,  that  Josephus  adhered  to  this  reference. 
This,  however,  requires  so  many  preliminaries,  that  we  are  not  able 
here,  where  we  have  no  room  to  spare,  to  engage  in  the  task.  It 
must  be  previously  shown,  *  1.  That  the  so  often  repeated  assertion, 
that  Josephus  regarded,  or  at  least  declared,  Vespasian  to  be  the 
Messiah,  (comp.  z.  B.  Ittig,  Prolegg.  in  Havercamp,  II.  p.  93,  and 
Bretschneider,  Capp.  Theol.  Jud.  Dogm.  ex  Josepho,  p.  30,)  is  en- 
tirely erroneous,  although  even  Origen,  whose  testimony  is  abused  to 


THE   NON-MESSIANIC  INTERPRETERS.  421 

render  suspicious  that  concerning  Christ,  seems  to  have  held  this 
opinion,  while  Suetonius,  chap.  5,  more  considerately  attributes  noth- 
ing to  Josephus,  but  what  actually  belongs  to  him,  the  annunciation 
of  the  establishment  of  the  power  of  the  Caesars,  in  Vespasian.  The 
foundation  of  this  proof  is  the  passage  chap.  10.  10,  4,  where  Jo- 
sephus, in  believing  confidence,  expected  the  future  establishment  of 
the  kingdom  of  glory,  only  he  expressed  himself  with  that  fore- 
thought, which  his  difficult  position,  the  great  hatred  of  his  country- 
men, which  even  led  them  to  accuse  him  before  the  Romans  of 
studii  rerum  novm-um  (comp.  De  Bell.  Jud.  7.  11),  required.  2.  That 
the  passage  concerning  Christ  is  neith>;r  spurious,  nor  interpolated ; 
and  3.  I'hat  Josephus  at  the  time  of  the  composition  of  his  works 
was  a  Christian,  if  we  can  give  this  name  to  one,  who  has  lively  im- 
pressions of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  although  still  weak  and  un- 
settled in  the  faith,  perhaps  had  become  one  by  the  mournful  catas- 
trophe, which  he  lived  to  witness. 

11.  The  reference  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  and  the  whole 
Non-Messianic  interpretation,  will  remain  false,  as  long  as  the  word 
of  Christ  remains  true,  therefore,  to  all  eternity.  That  the  passage, 
Matt.  24 :  15,  refers  to  this  prophecy,  has  been  shown  in  Beitr.  I.  p. 
263,  and  that  the  Lord  cites  it,  as  a  real  prophecy,  which  concerned 
the  destruction  of  city  and  temple,  to  be  first  fulfilled  at  a  future 
time,  in  the  same  place,  p.  266. 


We  now  look  around  for  the  arguments  against  the  Messianic  in- 
terpretation, but  one  only  presents  itself;  which,  even  if  it  were 
something  more  than  alheological  invalid,  would  still  scarcely  come 
off  victorious  in  the  contest  with  such  a  host  of  powerful  opponents. 
"  On  the  supposition  of  the  genuineness  of  those  prophecies,  we 
must  in  no  wise  interpret  them,  so  that  therein  will  be  given  an  ac- 
curate determination  of  the  time  of  the  establishment  or  completion 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  For  when  the  Redeemer  denies  to  the 
angels  of  heaven,  and  even  to  himself,  such  a  knowledge  of  the 
future  in  reference  to  the  time,  and  hour,  Matt.  24'.  36,  Mark  13: 
32,  and  even  after  his  resurrection.  Acts  1  :  6,  7,  we  cannot  possibly 
assume,  that  this  should  be  revealed  to  another  prophet,  and  more- 
over to  one  of  a  much  earlier  period,  so  that  he  could  have  commu- 


422  THE  SEVENTY   WEEKS  OF  DANIEL. 

nicated  that  time  with  chronological  accuracy  to  his  people,  whether 
in  the  usual,  or  in  any  so  called  mystical  measure  of  time,  so  far  as 
this  is  still  to  be  regarded  as  definite."  Thus  Bleek,  1.  c.  p.  234. 
That  is  to  say,  in  other  words,  because  Christ  did  not  consider  it 
suitable  to  give  to  his  disciples,  who  were  eager  for  the  reward  before 
they  had  endured  the  conflict ;  who  inquired  about  things  beyond 
their  comprehension,  and  not  suited  to  their  present  condition,  and 
thus  forgot  to  strive  for  the  one  thing  necessary  for  them,  the  being 
born  from  above ;  who  were  still  carnal,  and  to  whom  the  Lord  had 
still  much  to  say,  which  they  were  as  yet  unable  to  bear,  a  disclosure 
concerning  the  establi-shment  of  the  regni  glories,  which,  on  account 
of  their  condition,  could  only  be  injurious,  the  more  so  the  further 
distant  the  completion  of  the  salvation,  and  the  more  necessary  it 
was  that  they  should  now  be  pointed  directly  to  its  ground,  —  therefore 
God  cannot  have  given  to  a  prophet  of  the  Old  Testament  a  disclos- 
ure of  the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  re^///"  ^/-of/tf;,  and  although 
a  prophecy,  investigated  according  to  all  the  laws  of  a  sound  inter- 
pretation, accurately  gives  this  lime  even  to  a  year,  and  although  no 
error  in  the  interpretation  and  chronology  can  be  pointed  out,  yet  it 
is  certain,  beforehand,  that  it  is  false.  But  what  right  have  we  to 
refer  what  was  said  in  respect  to  the  regnum  gloricB,  directly  to  the 
regnuin  gratia}  ?  What  right  to  understand,  as  universally  denied, 
that  which  is  so  concerning  the  former  only  in  respect  to  one  definite 
time?  Bengel,  in  the  most  admirable  manner  in  the  Gnomon,  and 
in  the  Ordo  Tempp.  p.  301  sq.,  has  already  refuted  those,  who  have 
argued  from  these  passages,  against  the  existence  of  definite  dates 
in  the  Apocalypse,  He  says,  among  other  things,  "  Non  dixit, 
nemo  sciet,  sed  nemo  scit.  Ipse  jam  jamque  scititrus  erat,  et  quum 
scientium  did  et  horcB  nactus  fuit,  ipsiiis  erat  srAentiam  dare,  cui 
vellct  et  qunndo  vellet."  —  That  the  ground  of  the  Saviour's  refusal 
lay  in  the  condition  of  the  disciples,  is  evident  from  Acts  1  :  7,  ov^ 
vytiv  Eoxi  yvwvai,  XQOvovq  ?)  xni<)ovg,  ovg  6  narT]o  i&STO  iv  lij  Idia  i^ovoin, 
comp. Avilh  v.  S,  u).Xa  lijqjej&f  bvva^iv  imX&oizog  tov  ayiov  Trrevuix- 
Tog  fcp'  vpixi;,  i.  q.,  it  is  not  this  which  is  necessary  for  you,  but  some- 
thing else,  and  while  God  denies  the  former,  he  will  grant  the  latter. 
The  only  course  by  which  this  argument  would  have  the  appearance 
of  validity,  would  be  to  say,  Shall  God  have  imparted  chronological- 
ly definite  disclosures  respecting  future  things  to  a  prophet,  when  the 
Lord,  who,  even  in  his  state  of  humiliation,  was  greater  than  all 
prophets,  designated  such  disclosures  as  beyond  his  condition  ?  Then, 


THE    NON-MESSIANIC   INTERPRETERS.  423 

however,  the  contest  would  be  carried  on  at  the  same  time  against 
all  other  chronologically  definite  prophecies,  not  merely  ol  the  Old 
Testament,  but  also  of  Christ  himself,  who  certainly  predicted  that 
after  three  days,  he  would  rise  again,  and  even  against  all  prophe- 
cies, in  which  other  contingent  circumstances  are  predicted.  For 
how  are  chronological  determinaliong  different  from  others?  At  the 
same  time  the  greatest  difficulties  of  oilier  kinds  arise.  For  how 
can  we  regard  a  whole  jirovince  of  divine  knowledge  as  absolutely 
inaccessible,  even  when  it  would  serve  his  purpose,  to  him,  who  knew 
that  the  Father  ahcnys  heard  him,  John  11  :  42,  to  whom  the  Father 
showed  all  things  that  he  did,  John  5:  20.  These  passages,  and  a 
multitude  of  others,  show  that  the  correct  view  of  the  ignorance  of 
the  Lord,  is  rather  this:  Christ,  in  the  state  of  humiliation,  in  which 
the  divine  nature  was  quiescent,  received  all  that  was  requisite  for 
the  execution  of  his  office,  beyond  the  powers  and  gifts  of  his  human 
nature,  by  communication  from  above,  which  he  sapplicated  in 
prayer.  In  himself  he  possessed  neither  the  power  to  do  a  miracle, 
nor  to  look  through  the  future  ;  but  never  was  this  power  denied  to 
his  prayer,  since  on-  account  of  the  unity  of  his  will  with  that  of 
God,  he  could  pray  for  nothing,  which  was  not  in  accordance  with 
God's  designs.  Hence,  it  appears  that  the  ignorance  of  the  Son, 
was  a  simple  consequence  of  his  not  willing;  and  this,  again,  was 
owing  to  the  condition  of  his  disciples.  In  like  manner  the  Lord, 
without  thereby  in  the  least  encroaching  upon  his  power  of  work- 
ing miracles,  might  have  answered  the  demand  of  Satan  to  change 
stone  into  bread,  that  he  could  not  do  this.  If,  however,  the  ig- 
norance of  Christ  was  a  consequence  of  the  unsuitableness  of  the 
required  knowledge  in  reference  to  time  and  persons,  how  can  we 
infer  from  it,  that  he  did  not  at  another  time  impart  the  suitable 
chronologically  definite  disclosures  respecting  the  future,  to  his  ser- 
vants, the  prophets,  and  through  them  to  his  people. 


END    OF    VOL.    II. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

rOLSOM,     WELLS,     AND     THURSTON. 
PRIKTGHS    TO    THE    UNITEESITT. 


ERRATA    IN    VOL.    II. 


Page   9, 

line 

14 

«    23, 

" 

8 

«    27, 

•■' 

13 

"    61, 

« 

5 

"    86, 

" 

19 

"  134, 

" 

25 

"  158, 

" 

12 

«  158, 

« 

3 

"  182, 

'• 

3 

"  186, 

" 

10 

"  186, 

" 

3 

"  188, 

" 

10 

«  188, 

« 

14 

"  209, 

" 

1 

"  318, 

" 

1 

14  from  the  bottoin,/or  faith         read  path 


top,        ' 

'    inferior 

'    another 

top, 

wages 

'    ways 

top,        ' 

crowns 

'    crmmi 

bottom, 

'    here 

'    were 

bottom. 

'    fire 

'    peg 

top, 

'     shepherds 

■     shepherd 

bottom,  ' 

'     condition 

'     conduct 

top,         ' 

'     gold 

'    money 

bottom,  ' 

•     gold 

'    money 

bottom, 

'    gold 

"    money 

top,        ' 

'    gold 

'    money 

top,         ' 

gold 

'    money. 

top,         ' 

from 

'    P«n 

bottom, ' 

'    confining 

'    confirming 

